SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rajendra Saxena, J.
Bhakhar Ram & Anr. - Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Crl. Appeal No. 289-1992
Decided on 14.9.1994
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellants: M.L. Garg, M.K. Garg and J.R. Beniwal.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Chandralekha, P.P.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304B and 304 II - Convictions under - Appeal- Death by burning - Inordinate delay of nine days in lodging FIR not explained - Deceased, 20 years of age, felt inconvenience due to lack of facilities of water and electricity in her husband's village - No evidence to establish that deceased was subjected to any cruelty in connection with any demand of dowry - Fact of no smoke or blackening of roof in room, where alleged incident took place not put to appellants - Lower Court has not correctly scanned and evaluated evidence recorded - New facts introduced which are against record - Case of gross illegality - Conviction recorded u/ss. 304B and 304 Part II not sustainable.(Paras28 to 30)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Saxena, J. - Appellants Bhakhar Ram and Smt. Gera alongwith Co-accused Deena ram were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, who by his judgment dated 5.8.1992 found the appellants guilty for the offences u/ss. 304 Band 304 part Second IPC and sentenced each one of them to ten years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for two and a half months on each count and further ordered that their sentences shall run concurrently. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted co-accused Deena Ram.

2. A brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be recapitulated. On 8.3.1989 at about 11 P.M., Smt. Geeta aged about 25 years was brought by her husband Bhakhar Ram, appellant, to the SJ. Govt. Hospital, Jaisalmer. She had about 55 to 60% burn injuries on her body. She was admitted in the hospital by DW1 Dr. Ramji Ram. It appears that on the same day, the S.H.O., P.S., Jaisalmer also sent a letter Ex. P. 19 to the Medical Officer, S.J. Hospital, Jaisalmer informing that Smt. Geeta was not admitted in the hospital in a burnt condition for treatment and, requested that her injuries should be examined and that he should also be informed as to whether she was in a fit state of mind to give her statement. It appears that the doctor after examining Smt. Geeta informed the police that she was not in a fit state of mind to give her statement. It further appears that on the police requisition, PW 13 Dr. C.S. Joshi, Medical Jurist, examined Smt. Geeta at 2.15 A.M. on 9.3.1989 and prepared her Medico Legal Injury Report Ex. P. 14. He found that there were about 75% burns on her body and that the affected areas were head & neck alongwith scalp, upper limbs, chest and upper 2/3 of the abdomen. Her hair were charred. Her perineum and front of both thighs were also affected by burns. The burn injuries were superficial & deep both, here and there. The burnt skin was pealed off and blisters were also present here & there. She was not fully conscious. Dr. Joshi also made a note that recording of her dying declaration be got arranged. He opined that the burn injuries were grievous in nature and their duration was about 24 hours.

3. Smt. Geeta was given treatment and as per entry on her Indoor Patient ticket Ex. D. 3, she expired on 9.3.1989 at 9.20 A.M. On 9.3.1989 at 11.10 A.M., appellant Bhakhar Ram lodged a written report Ex. P. 18 to the S.H.O., P.S., Jaisalmer, wherein he informed that on 8.3.1989 at about 7.30 P.M., his wife Smt. Geeta Devi was trying to lit the lamp (Chimni) at his house situated in village Hadda, that due to darkness, she poured more kerosene oil in the lamp and caught fire as soon as she torched the lamp. He further informed that her terylene clothes caught fire; that she rushed out from the room and screamed and that thereupon he alongwith his mother Smt. Gera, appellant, and brother Hukma Ram threw water on her and quelled the fire. He further informed that at that time, Sura Ram and Jai Ram had also arrived there and that thereafter on their advice, he brought his wife to Jaisalmer in a 'Nishan' Jeep, where she was admitted in the hospital and later on expired next day at about 10 A.M. On further interrogation by PW 16 Ram Singh, S.H.O., P.S., Jaisalmer, appellant Bhakhar Ram informed him that his marriage with Smt. Geeta was solemnized about three years ago. Shri Ram Singh conducted enquiry u/s. 174. Cr. P.C. alongwith PW 17 Jagga Ram, SHO, PS Mohangarh, who at that time had come to Jaisalmer on Govt. duty. PW 17 Jagga Ram went to the hospital and prepared the memo of the dead body of Smt. Geeta Ex. P. 15 and Panch Nama Ex. P. 16 in the presence of the S.D.M. It appears that by that time, PW 6 Bhanwarlal, the father of the deceased, had also come to the hospital from Pokran and in his presence after the post mortem examination, the dead body of Smt. Geeta was handed over to appellant Bhakhar Ram vide memo Ex. P.17. The dead body of Smt. Geeta was t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top