Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A and 304B -appeal against conviction in dowry death- it was alleged that within 7-8 years of marriage the deceased died as she was subject to cruelty by her husband and in law-as per the FIR on the preceding day of death she informed her parent that her in-laws beat her and demanding motor cycle-the medical report held the burn injuries suicidal in nature-the prosecution's story was not supported by the witnesses-No evidence on record to establish that appellants abetted to commit suicide - Conviction not justified - Conviction set aside - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. -This criminal appeal under section 374 Cr.RC. by accused appellants viz. Man Singh and Jai Ram has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur by which he has convicted the accused appellants for the offence under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and sentenced each of them as under:
Under section 498-A IPC.
Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo,simple imprisonment of fifteen days.
Under Section 304-B IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 13.4.2001 PW3 Ram Prasad Meena lodged a written report at Police Station, Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur, alleging therein that his sister was married to appellant Man Singh Meena about 7-8 years ago. The 'Gona' was done about a year back and since then she used to visit her in-laws place. It is further alleged that appellant Man Singh informed him on telephone from the hospital that Phoolwati has died. He further alleged because of pressure and cruelty by appellants Man Singh, Jairam and one Hanuman, her sister committed suicide by setting her on fire. A day prior i.e. on 12.4.2001, his sister telephonically informed him that members of her In-laws' family used to beat her and requested him to bound them not to do so, else she will die. Lastly, the complainant alleged that he had fulfilled their demand by making them available a motor cycle.
3. On the basis of the above report Ex.P/3 the police registered a case against the appellants and one Hanuman for offence under Sections 498 A and 304B IPC vide FIR, Ex.P/4 and proceeded with the investigation.
4. During investigation, police prepared site plan, Ex.P/5 and seized a plastic bottle from the place of incident vide memo Ex.P6. On receipt of letter Ex.P11 from General Hospital, Sawai Madhopur, informing the police about the death of Phoolwati by burn injuries, the police registered case (Marg) No.5/2001 under section 176 Cr.P.C. and forwarded it to the SDO for Panchayatnama and enquiry.
5. The dead body of deceased was referred to the Hospital for post-mortem, PW16 Dr. Abdul Ajij Kagzi, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sawaimadhopur conducted autopsy on the dead body and prepared post-mortem report Ex.P/12. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of Smt. Phoolwati was shock brought about as a result of extensive dry flame burn and it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
6. Having, completed the required formalities, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellants in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having found the case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions.
7. The learnd Sessions, Judge, after hearing counsel for the parties, framed charges against the appellants under section 498A and 304B IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. In the course of trial, the prosecution, to prove its case, examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter the trial court examined the appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. In his explanation, appellant Man Singh stated that his wife had illicit relations with his brother-in-law (Sadhu) and has committed suicide because of diffidence. Another appellant Jai Singh has stated in his explanation that his daughter-in-law has committed suicide as a result of difference. The accused appellants also examined 5 witnesses in their defence.
8. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case, as alleged d proved and accordingly found the appellants guilty of having committed offence under sections 498A and 304B IPC and convicted them of the said offence and sentenced them as afor
Click Here to Read the rest of this document