PALA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 2. 8. 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, whereby he has convicted accused appellants Pala Ram and Mst. Kalawati wife of Manphul Ram under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo one month's R. I. Both the accused were also convicted under Section 498a IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo one month's R. I. Both these substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) FACTS leading to this appeal are that complainant Het Ram of Chak 6 MJD Ghadsana filed a typed report before the S. H. O. , Police Station Sangaria on 30. 4. 2001 at 7 P. M. that her daughter Mst. Sharda was married with accused appellant Pala Ram, his another daughter Geeta was married with Prithvi Ram and third daughter Banto was married with Mahendra. All were sons of Manphul Ram, by caste Jat, resident of Chak 20 MJD Rohi Dholipal. The marriage took place 12 to 13 years back. His daughter Banto and son-in-law Mahendra are residing separately. He spent about one lakh rupees in dowry but accused Pala Ram, Prithvi Ram, sons of Manphul Ram and Mst. Kalawati wife of Manphul Ram were not happy with the dowry and they used to harass his daughter. After this harassment, they entered into a compromise and her in-laws took his daughter with them. Today on 30. 4. 2001 at 11 A. M. Pappu Ram son of Bhadar Ram and his daughter Banto came to him and told that his daughter Sharda has been killed by accused Pala Ram, Prithvi Ram, Mst. Kalawati and his daughter Geeta by administering poison. When his wife Rameshwari went on the spot, she saw Mst. Sharda lying in the chowk and blood was oozing out from her nose and mouth. Upon this report, a case under Sections 302 and 498a IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. After investigation, accused appellants were challaned under Sections 302 and 498a IPC before the ACJM, Sangaria, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where the accused were charged under Section 302 or in alternative under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 498a IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Crpc. They produced 5 witnesses in their defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as above.

(3.) THUS, the statements of both the material witnesses are inconsistent and un-corroborated and it cannot be gathered as to whether the poison was either administered by accused Pala Ram or Kalawati or by someone else. In criminal trial, a person charged with the offence of murder, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the intention of the accused was to kill the deceased. As revealed from the evidence gathered in this case, apart from there being inconsistent statements of the above two witnesses, there is a positive evidence of Banto Devi (PW-5) that Mst. Sharda took poison herself. This incident was reported to her by her daughter Manju (PW-6) but Manju's statement is self contradictory and does not inspire confidence with regard to the fact that the poison was administered by four accused persons. Had it been so, the police could have challaned rest of the two, but to the best reasons known to the Investigating Agency, Geeta and Prithvi have not been chargesheeted in this case. The totality of the evidence and examination in chief and cross examination of Manju reveals that her statement is improved and only inference which can be gathered from her statement is that on account of harassment for dowry and beating by her husband Pala Ram, deceased Sharda took poison and committed suicide. This act of the accused by harassing her amounts to cruelty within the definition of Sec. 498a IPC for which accused Pala Ram can be held liable only u/ss. 306 & 498a IPC, whereas Mst. Kalawati's act is confined to Section 498a IPC.