GANWARA (MST.) Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated 25.5.85 in Sessions Case No.125/85, whereby he convicted appellant Mst.Ganwara under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 50/-.

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal are that on 5.9.82, Jagdishlal, probationer RPS, posted as Incharge, Police Station, Naya Shahar, Bikaner recorded the statement of deceased Shanti, Ex.P.24 at PBM Hospital, Bikaner, wherein she stated that her mother in law accused appellant Ganwara was not happy on the issue of dowry, which she brought from her parental house and she used to beat her off and on. On the day of incident, her husband and father in law were outside the house and she and her mother in law were inside the house. In the morning at about 10 AM, when she was in the upper storey room of her house, her mother in law accused appellant Ganwara called her downstairs in the "aangan" (chowk) and told that she will put her to fire. She brought a kerosene bottle from "Ora" (store) inside the room and sprinkled kerosene on her body and lit fire with matchstick. She was not allowed to run away. Her clothes were burnt. The neighbourers assembled there and took her to the hospital. On the basis of this statement, probationer Dy.S.P. registered a case u/s.307 IPC against the accused appellant Ganwara. During the course of investigation, the dying declaration of Mst.Shanti was recorded by the learned Magistrate vide Ex.P.11. During treatment, she died in the hospital on 7.9.82. Upon the death of deceased Shanti, the offence u/s.302 IPC was added. The post mortem of the dead body of deceased Shanti was conducted vide Ex.P.9. Prior to her death, her injuries were also examined vide Ex.P.23. After usual investigation, accused Mst.Ganwara was charge-sheeted u/s.302 IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused appellant u/s.302 IPC to which she pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The statement of the accused Mst.Ganwara was recorded u/s.313 CrPC in which she stated that deceased Shanti was not liking his son and she wanted to live at her father's house, therefore, she died herself by pouring kerosene on her body. Many a times, the relatives tried to reconcile and ultimately, Shanti came to her in-laws' house. On the day of incident, she went to Gopalji temple as usual. There, she came to know from the boys of the locality that Shanti has poured kerosene on her body. She ultimately rushed to the house and took the deceased at the hospital. Thereafter, the relatives of Shanti came to the hospital alongwith advocate Mr.Purushottam Vyas. She has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused appellant produced three witnesses in defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant as above.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Sr.Advocate Mr.M.D.Purohit that it is a false case registered against the accused appellant under the pressure of advocate and relatives of deceased Shanti. The theory of dying declaration is concocted one and the same has not been given voluntarily because at the time of giving the dying declaration, many of her relatives were sitting in the hospital alongwith advocate Mr.Purushottam Vyas. He further submits that not a single witness of the incident has supported the theory of putting kerosene on the body of deceased Shanti by accused appellant Ganwara, being mother in law. On the contrary, she was in Gopalji Temple when the incident took place and she herself took her daughter in law to the hospital. According to the learned counsel, this submission is fortified from the testimony of the investigating officer, who too has specifically stated that neither any neighbour told him about the incident of putting kerosene by the mother in law of deceased Shanti nor any evidence was available to the effect that accused appellant Ganwara was in the house at the time of incident and on the contrary, she was in the Gopalji Temple at the relevant time.