BAJRANG Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Sushila deceased was married to Subash appellant on 5-7-87. While living with her husband and other appellants who are her husband's mother, elder brother, younger brother and elder brother's wife, Smt. Sushila died on 31-5-88 of burn injuries. The case of prosecution is that the deceased used to be harassed and treated with cruelty by the appellants for bringing insufficient dowry. It is further alleged that Smt. Sushila's mother P.W. 2, Smt. Kalavati, her sister-in-law P.W. 1 Smt. Maya Devi and her brother P.W. 4 Chanan Mal though tried to satisfy the demand of the appellants for dowry by giving a T.V. set, an electric fan and other articles yet their demand went on increasing. It is further alleged that on 22-5-88 when the above witnesses reached the house of the appellants they demanded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from them failing which Smt. Sushila was to be tortured. After 8 or 10 days of the said incident, Smt. Sushila died of burn injuries and the incident was witnessed by several persons including P.W. 5 Lal Chand Shankla and P. W. 10 Smt. Nathi.

(2.) The FIR of the above incident was lodged by P.W. 4 Chanan Mal on 2-6-88. After investigation of the case the police charge-sheeted Bajrang Lal and Smt. Choti Devi appellants only for offences under Ss. 304-B, 306 and 498-A, IPC and the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions against those two appellants only. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against Bajrang Lal and Smt. Choti Devi on 19-1-89 for offences under Ss. 304-B, 498-A and 306, IPC. However, on 1-3-89 Chanan Mal moved an application u/S. 319, Cr. P.C. through the Additional P.P. for summoning the remaining appellants as further accused in the case. On 2-3-89 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, accepted such prayer of the prosecution and summoned Subash, Shyam Sunder and Smt. Sulochana appellants as further accused in the case. After holding the trial of all the appellants the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his judgment and order dt. 15-5-91, found all the appellants guilty of the offences under Ss. 304-B and 498-A, IPC and convicted and sentenced them for 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- each and two years R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- each respectively. They were acquitted of the offence u/S. 306, IPC. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Mr. H. S. Sandhu, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted at the very out set that three appellants, namely Bagrang Lal, Subhash and Shyam Sunder have already been released from jail after having undergone the sentences awarded to them by the trial Court, after obtaining the benefit of remission in their respective sentences. It was, therefore, submitted that their appeal has become infructuous and may be dismissed for that reason. The learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the facts as submitted by the learned counsel. The record of the lower Court varifies the facts submitted by Mr. Sandhu. The appeal of Bajrang Lal, Subash and Shyam Sunder was not thus pressed by Mr. Sandhu and the same is accordingly dismissed.