Honble S.K. SHARMA, J.–The appellants Chandra Devi and Jai Singh were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 102/94. They were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated June 3, 1996 under sections 304 B and 498A IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and also 3 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to further suffer imprisonment for 15 days. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Against this Judgment of conviction and sentence that the action for filing the present appeal has been resorted to by the appellants.

(2). In brief the prosecution case is that Gopi Singh, (PW. 12). SHO Police Station Jhotwara recorded the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P.3) of Smt. Geeta Devi (since deceased) on August 6, 1994. Smt. Geeta Devi deposed in the Parcha Bayan that her marriage too9k place with Jai Singh some three years ago and she was issueless. After marriage Jai Singh and his younger brother Gajraj and mother in- law Chandra Devi used to harass and beat her in connection with dowry that included demand of scooter. On the day of the incident her mother-in-law addressed her as sweeper and asked her to clean latrine. When she declined her husband Jai Singh and his brother Gajraj sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze by igniting match stick. It was Arun who extinguished the fire by water. On the basis of Parcha Bayan FIR No. 334/94 was registered at Police Station Jhotwara for the offences under Secs. 498A & 307 IPC nd investigation commenced. After the death of Geeta the case was converted u/Sec. 304 B IPC. Autopsy on the dead body of Geeta Devi was conducted. Statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were recorded. Site was inspected and the accused were arrested. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against Chandra Devi and jai Singh in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur whereas charge sheet against accused Gajraj Singh was filed before the Juvenile Court Jaipur.

In due course the case came up for trial before the learned trial Judge. Charges under sections 304 B and 498 A IPC were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. In their statements under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. the accused claimed innocence. As many as three defence witnesses were produced by the accused. The learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove.

Gajraj Singh was however acquitted by the judgment dated December 7, 1998 by the Juvenile Court Jaipur from the charges under sections 498A and 304 B IPC.

(3). We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel and with their assistance scrutinised the material on record.

(4). The primary requirements for finding the appellants guilty of the offence under Sec.304 B IPC are that death of the deceased was caused by burns within seven years f her marriage and that ``soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with the demand for dowry.

(5). From the statements of Smt. Manju (PW,11), Rati Ram (PW. 8), Ashok Kumar (PW.7) and Phool Chand (PW. 3) it is evident that marriage of deceased Geeta Devi and taken place on April 24, 1992. Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma (PW. 15) who conducted the autopsy on the deadbody of Geeta testified that the death was caused by burns on August 6, 1994. Thus it is established that the death of Geeta Devi took place within seven years of her marriage by burns.

(6). In order to establish that ``soon before her death Geeta Devi was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry,an argument is raised by learned Public Prosecutor to resort to the legal presumption envisaged in section 113-B of the Evidence Act. In provides thus:

``113-B. Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document