The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of scrutinizing and verifying dying declarations and parchabayans, the need for compliance with recording procedures, and the possibility of suicide in cases involving burn injuries.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Bhandari, J.)

1. The appellant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as hereinunder:-

(i) For the offence under Section 498-A IPC- 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

(ii) For the offence under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 13.05.2011, Aedal Prasad (PW-24), S.I., Police Station, Galta Gate, Jaipur (North) recorded a parchabayan (Exhibit-P21) of the victim wherein she has stated that her marriage was solemnized about 8 years back and that since the beginning, she has been subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by her husband and his other family members. She has further stated that on 13.05.2011, her husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze, as a result of which, she sustained injuries. On the basis of the said parchabayan, the police registered an FIR bearing No.137/2011 (Exhibit-P22) for the offence under Section 498-A & 307 of IPC against the accused appellant, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of victim. During the course of treatment, the victim died and the charge under Section 302 IPC was added by the Investigating Officer. The police, after due investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused appellant only under Sections 498-A, 307 & 302 IPC. The learned Trial Court, after committal of the case, framed charges against accused-appellant for offence under Section 498-A & 302 of IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges and sought trial. Upon which, 26 witnesses were examined and 37 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Explanation of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In defence, 2 witnesses were produced and 8 documents were exhibited. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the final arguments of both the parties, has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated hereinabove, aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

3. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant that the deceased was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law – Mohammad Iqbal (PW-12) and a complaint of which was also made to the Village Panchayat. The Village Panchayat had forbidden Iqbal from visiting the house of the appellant, due to which, the deceased was under depression. It is also contended that family of the deceased had earlier levelled allegations against the accused appellant that he killed the brother of the deceased by black magic. The deceased was also under depression because of the false allegations levelled against the appellant. It is further contended that the provisions of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 have not been followed. The doctor in whose presence parchabayan was recorded, has not been examined by the prosecution. The parchabayan was not recorded in presence of two independent witnesses. It is also contended that parchabayan was recorded by Aedal Prasad, SI (PW-24), who is not a Gazetted Officer.

4. It is contended that at 9:30 am, the doctor had given a Fitness Certificate (Exhibit-P-23), parchabayan was recorded at 9:35 am by the Sub Inspector (SI) and deceased expired at 9:50 am. At the relevant time, Aedal Prasad, SI (PW-24) was present in the hospital. It is argued that even after having knowledge of the demise of the deceased, an application was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) to record the statement of the victim. As to why Aedal Prasad, SI (PW-24), sent a let