HAJARIMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hajarimal, appellant No. 1, is the husband of deceased Saurabh Devi, Bagaram, appellant No. 2, her father-in-law and Smt. Koku, appellant No. 3 is her mother-in-law. All of them have been convicted under S. 498-A, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. For offence under S. 304-B, IPC each one of them has been sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by his judgment dated 16-8-1997.

(2.) It was appellant No. 1 Hajarimal who lodged report with the S.H.O. Bagra on 16-8-95 at 8 p.m. to the effect that he was married to Saurabh Devi about 7 years ago. The couple was having two children. He was jointly living with his father. The family had two houses in the village and old one was situated within thickly populated area of the village where at about 5 p.m. Smt. Saurabh Devi went and poured kerosene oil and burnt herself. She thereby committed suicide. Information was given to him by Tolaram in the new house. He and his father immediately rushed to the old house and found that 10-15 persons of the mohalla were throwing water on Saurabh Devi. By the time, he and his father reached there, Saurabh Devi had died. Saurabh Devi was asking him for some time that the couple should live separate from his parents and on the fateful day in the morning she had asked to separate early. Hajarimal was trying to make her understand that his grandmother had died very recently and that the guests were coming and that they would live separately with effect from coming Diwali. She was angry on this account and, therefore, she committed suicide. It was also stated in the report that Saurabh Devi and his parents had never quarrelled. On this report, police started inquiry under S. 174, Cr.P.C. Panchnama of dead body was prepared. Postmortem of Smt. Saurabh was conducted by the medical officer of Primary Health Centre, Bagra according to which the cause of death of Saurabh was extensive burns leading to shock and death. When the post-mortem was performed, her mouth was found semi open and tongue was found protruded in between the teeth. Carbon particles were present in the mouth. S.D.O. Jalore after inquest submitted a written report to the S.P. Jalore on 19-8-95 which is Ex.P/3. According to this report the witnesses on the parent's side of Saurabh Devi stated that accused appellants used to harass Saurabh Devi and she was given beatings by all the three about a month ago. She had suffered an injury in her head and the wound was stitched and she was treated in Bagra by her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The husband was working at Bhiwandi (Maharashtra) from where he had come during those days and the father of the girl was having a jeep which was being demanded by the husband, appellant no. 1, and that his father used to supply the edible goods. The parallel story, as disclosed by the witnesses of the accused-appellants, was that on 16-8-95 a quarrel took place between Saurabh Devi and the accused-appellants. Saurabh Devi thereafter threw the container consisting of flour in the house of her father-in-law and went back to her home and after pouring kerosene oil on herself committed suicide. The report mentions that since the death of Saurabh Devi had taken place in suspicious circumstances, a case under various sections of I.P.C. may be registered. Thereupon the police registered a case under Ss. 304-B and 498-A, IPC on 22-8-95. Accused-appellants were arrested and after investigation they were challaned before the Judicial Magistrate of Jalore. He committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge who framed charges under these two sections against the appellants on 15-4-96. They denied their indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses on its behalf. Then the accused-appellants were examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. They produced three witnesses in defence. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalore after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above vide his judgment dated 16-8-97.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have also gone through the record.