SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant appeal, the accused appellants have challenged the legality of the conviction and sentences recorded against them for the offences under Sections 302 and 498A IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, vide his judgment dated 23.7.03 delivered in Sessions Case No. 6/2002. For the offence Under Section 302 IPC, all the three accused appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each and in default, to further undergo six months' imprisonment, whereas under Section 498A IPC, they were sentenced to three years' S.I. alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each and in default, to further undergo S.I. for two months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that on 19.11.2001 at 5.15 PM, Dr. Sushila Choudhary, S.M.O., Govt. Hospital, Sangaria informed to Mahendra Dutt, Sub Inspector; Police Station, Sangaria that one lady Smt. Kamlesh w/o Subhash (accused), who consumed spray, was admitted in the hospital, therefore necessary action should be taken. Upon this, he went at the hospital and recorded the statement of Smt. Kamlesh in which she stated that she married three years back with Subhash son of Sri Ram. She was harassed by her husband and in -law for dowry and they demanded Rs. 50,000/ -. Her husband caught hold of her mouth and mother -in -law Bhagwati, father -in -law Sri Ram and sister -in -law Manju forcibly administered spray and, thereafter, they took her to the hospital in a private jeep. Upon this statement, a case under Sections 498A and 307 IPC was registered. The statement of Smt. Kamlesh was also recorded by the magistrate at the hospital itself. On the next day, Smt. Kamlesh died. The cause of death as the post mortem report was poison. The doctor opined that the nature of poison will be given after chemical examination report. Thereafter, the police investigated the case and filed chargesheet. After hearing the argument son charge, the learned trial Judge framed charges against the accused Under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and in alternative Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They produced 4 witnesses in their defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellants as above.

(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported, the judgment of the learned trial Court.