SAKHI DEVI AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment of the conviction dated 9.6.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in sessions case No. 39/95, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

(2.) The appellants were prosecuted under sections 304-B 8r 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the prosecution that a first information report was lodged on 28.7.1995 by one Om Singh stating that on 27.5.1995, his sister met homicidal death at the hands of her husband Lilu Singh and mother-in-law Sakhi Devi. It is alleged in the first information report that these persons were harassing and treating with cruelty the deceased Bhagwati for not bringing appropriate dowry. The marriage had taken place on 6.3.1992. Admittedly therefore, the death occurred within seven years of the marriage. After due investigation, challan was filed by the police against the appellants and the learned Judge recorded the evidence and on appreciation of the evidence found the accused-persons guilty as aforesaid. It is this order which is assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants on several grounds. It is submitted that the learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record completely. He has totally ignored the material evidence in the shape of dying declaration given by deceased Bhagwati in presence of Magistrate after being duly certified by the Doctor as capable of testifying. It was then submitted by the learned counsel that there are no eye witnesses in the present case. Majority of the witnesses have been declared hostile and there is no evidence on the basis of which a conviction can legitimately be ordered or maintained.

(3.) In view of the fact that the learned Judge has recorded the conviction, the evidence in its entirety will have to be re-appreciated to scrutinise the judgment impugned in appeal. PW 1 is one Jitendra Singh S/o Roop Singh who stated that he did not see the wife of Lilu Singh in a burnt state. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he stated that his police statement was forcibly recorded. Then he alleged in the cross-examination by the prosecutor that he does not know anything about the incident. He also denied the suggestion that whenever he visited the accused, he heard from the people in the vicinity that the accused-persons were torturing Bhagwati in connection with dowry. It will thus be seen that this witness does not state anything and was liable to be ignored.