BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three accused -appellants, aggrieved by their conviction for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. simpliciter and sentence often years rigorous imprisonment to each with fine of Rs. 500/ - each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer have preferred this appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the case are that one Bajranglal Sharma, father of the deceased Smt. Shakuntala Devi, lodged written report Ex. P 12 at Police Station Kekri on 21st November, 1983 wherein it was mentioned that he married his daughter, Shakuntala on 8 -12 -1978 to one Gopi Kishan son of Bhanwarlal, the appellant No. 1, who was then Lecturer. His daughter who had been staying all the period in her -in laws house wrote a letter to him on 19th November, 1983 wherein she mentioned that Bhanwarlal's family was not treating her properly, so he went to Kekri and learnt from the girl that her brother -in -law, father -in -law and mother -in -law were not properly behaving with her and her brother -in -law, Gopal, bad threatened her with death. He, however could not contact Bhanwar Lal and he returned to Malpura on 20th November, 1983 where his son -in -law came to see him off. Soon thereafter, when he reached Malpura, he received a wireless message about the death of his daughter, hearing which he aggrieved at Kekri and learnt that she has committed suicide. He suspected that it is a case of murder committed by her brother -in -law, Gopal and other in -laws. On the basis of this report a case under Section 306 I.P.C. was registered against the accused appellants, They were arrested on 8th February, 1984. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge -sheet against all the three accused -appellants for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kekri who committed the case to the Sessions Court Ajmer The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer.

(3.) SHRI S.P. Sharma appearing with Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to connect any of the accused individually or collectively with the commission of crime of aiding or abating the commission of suicide by deceased Shakuntala. It is submitted that accused appellants have been convicted mainly on the statements of highly interested witnesses and holding that Exhibits P. 3, P. 9, P. 10 and P. 11 which are self explanatory and clearly indicate that she had been harassed and tortured and her mental condition became such that she could not resist the idea of putting end to her life. It is submitted that on 19th November, 1983 she addressed a letter and soon after that she committed suicide. It is further contended that a perusal of the first Information Report Ex. P. 12 which is a report in writing given by the father of the deceased after 24 hours of the death does not have even a remote hint that at any stage appellant had demanded dowry from them. It is submitted that it was not a case where demand of dowry is alleged as soon as she had been brought to in -laws house. It is after five years of the marriage that demand of dowry is attributed to the appellants. It is submitted that typical feature of the case is that all of them had lived together upto July, 1983 and no dispute had been complained of by her prior to that date hence it is difficult to conceive of that the demand of dowry would start after they decided to live separately. In fact, argument is that the prosecution has either suppressed or not, investigated the case properly as to the motive of murder or cause of committing suicide. It is further submitted that it is borne out from the record that the expenses of Shakuntala while she was in training at the STC Training College, were borne by her father in law and there was no question of such a person demanding dowry. It is further submitted that conviction of the appellants is not warranted in a case like the present. It is also submitted that the medical evidence is not in consonance with the theory propounded by the prosecution. He placed reliance on Malkiat Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1985 (1) Crimes 249, Brij Lal and Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1984 (2) Crimes 987 Shri Ram v. The State of U. P. : [1975]2SCR622 and Chanchal Kumari and Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh 1986 Cr. LJ 816.