SHAMBHU RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated November 20, 1996 of the learned Special Judge (Sati Prevention) Rajasthan-cum, Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, whereby the accused appellant for short the accused) was convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and three years RI with fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further undergo six months R.I. with a direction that sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows:

(3.) I have given my-anxious consideration to the rival contention8 and carefully scrutinised the record. Mr. A.K. Gupta learned Counsel appearing for the accused canvassed that conviction and sentences passed against the accused are patently illegal and perverse from the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witness and the learned Trial Court had committed error in not considering the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the accused is based on misreading of evidence. In the report Ex. P/3 facts in respect of demand of dowry and money had not been mentioned. Witness PW 2 Rakesh Gupta is the brother of the deceased. PW 3 Smt. Bhagwati Devi is the mother whereas PW 4 Shrikishan Gupta and PW 9 Sunita Gupta are father and sister. They are interested witnesses and there are material contradictions in their statements. PW 1 Dr. Man Singh Jam, recorded the dying declaration Ex. P/1 of the deceased. In the said statement deceased gave out that she sustained burn injuries on account of sudden flames from stove. PW 10, Kumari Brijesh Mathur had also supported the dying declaration and corroborate the evidence and she is an independent witness and she has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. It was under these circumstances it was proved that burn injuries sustained by the deceased were accidental and the accused attempted to save life of his wife and he also sustained burn injuries. PW 11 Lata is also an important witness being neighbour of the couple who also did not support the prosecution story regarding demand of dowry. Ex. D/69 is the injury report of the accused which shows that the accuser sustained burn injuries in the course of saving his wife. The learned Trial Court also did not consider this fact that marriage of accused with deceased Sunita was love marriage which had taken place with the approval of the families of the parties and question of demand of dowry does not arise at ali. The deceased was immediately taken to the nearby private clinic and if she was not shifted to Government Hospital no presumption could have been drawn against the bona fides of the accused. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the accused was rightly convicted.