RAMANAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- The appellants (Ramanand - husband of deceased Kiran and Sarvan Devi aged 75 years - mother-in-law of deceased Kiran) by way of this appeal have challenged judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror (Jaipur District) whereby each of them has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

(2.) The relevant facts, briefly stated, as unfolded by the prosecution are that on April 21, 1994. Babulal Yadav (complainant) lodged a written report (Ex. P1) to Police Station Mandhan alleging therein that marriage of his sister Kiran Devi was solemnised with appellant No. 1 Ramanand s/o Hardayal Singh about one and half years prior to the said complaint, and according to their means and status, the parents of Kiran Devi had given gifts at the time of her wedding but the parents of her husband were not satisfied with those gifts and therefore, on the one pretext of the other they used to cause harassment to the deceased. The allegations levelled against appellant No. 1 and his mother (appellant No. 2) relate to the demand of dowry. It has been alleged that whenever the appellant No. 1. who has been in army service, used to come back home on leave, invariably used to cause harassment to his wife (deceased Kiran Devi) on the issue of dowry demand, besides torture and beatings to her. The mother of Ramanand (appellant No. 1) is also alleged to have caused torture to the deceased on the demand of dowry saying that her son had not been given scooter or fridge at the time of wedding. On the day of the report appellant No. 1 had been on leave and he alongwith his mother had caused torture to the deceased and both of them have been responsible for unnatural death of his sister (deceased) and with a view to destroy the evidence they had also cremated the body of the deceased without any intimation to the deceased's parents. It has further been stated in the report that on the fateful day in the morning at about 8-9 a.m. an Ambassador car came to their village at Nimot when they were intimated regarding demise of Kiran Devi and that parental members of the deceased were told to accompany them to the village of her in-laws. Thereupon, Kanhaiya (father). Banthi Singh (elder uncle), Ganeshi (grand father), Melaram (uncle), Bhoop Singh (brother) Rajendra Singh and one Babulal accompanied the car driver to village (Kayasa) of the in-laws of Kiran Devi where they found that Kiran Devi had already been cremated. Thereafter the report (Ex. P.1) was lodged by Babulal on 21-4-94 atb6 p.m. On the basis of that report, police registered the crime vide FIR (Ex. P. 2) and started investigation. After usual investigation, challan was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Behror who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 201, IPC. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and produced five witnesses in defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, under the impugned judgment dated 17-1-1996 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Shri Samander Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that as per the F.I.R. the date of the alleged death of the deceased is reported to be 21-4-1994, her marriage was solemnised with appellant Ramanand about 18 months prior to that date in the year 1992 and further the F.I.R. (Ex. P. 2) is not signed by Babulal (informant) nor police proceedings have been signed by the investigating officer, only receipt of the copy of the FIR has been given on signing by Babulal. Therefore it has been contended that the F.I.R. is not in accordance with law which creates doubt and this has got to be seen in the context of the evidence of the informant in Court wherein he admitted that report (Ex. P. 1) was written when he reached Behror and that he never saw Bhoop Singh and Ram Singh (PWs) at the shop. Ramanand was arrested on the same day at the shop of Nandlal. In his statement recorded by the police under Section 161, Cr. P.C., it has been admitted that at the time of the marriage no dowry was settled and it is also noticeable that the appellant No. 2 did not participate in the marriage settlement. He has further contended that as per legal position even if the accused were to be charged for offences relating to the dowry demands punishable under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, the prosecution must establish offence beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence should also be consistent and cogent so as to prove guilt of the accused and establish as to what were those sparing reasons for both the appellants to remain silent before solemnisation of the marriage with regard to dowry demand. It seems that they were fully satisfied and did not join any issue with members of the deceased's parental family who were present at the time of the marriage settlement but started causing torture and harassment for demand of dowry after solemnisation of the marriage.