Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Hasnain Massodi,Janak Raj Kotwal, JJ.
Kala Ram -Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. -Resopndent
Cr. Appeal No. D-20-2011, Cr. M.A. No. D-26-2011 Confirm No. 09-2011
Decided On : 29-08-2013
Dowry Harassment - Criminal Law - Sections 498-A, 302 RPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 498-A and 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) - The court analyzed the dying declaration, the sufficiency of evidence, and the legal principles governing dying declarations. The court's decision was influenced by the legal requirements for proving a dying declaration and the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 RPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Kala Ram, was convicted under sections 498-A and 302 RPC for the death of his wife, Sharda Devi, due to burn injuries. The deceased had made a dying declaration accusing the appellant and his parents of harassment and setting her ablaze. The trial court found the appellant guilty under section 498-A RPC but acquitted his parents. The court relied on the dying declaration and the conduct of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty under section 498-A RPC based on the evidence of the deceased's family members. However, the court set aside the conviction under section 302 RPC due to the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the dying declaration and the mental fitness of the deceased at the time of recording the statement. The court upheld the conviction and sentence under section 498-A RPC and dismissed the appeal in that regard.
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence to prove the dying declaration and the mental fitness of the deceased at the time of recording the statement. The court also considered the plea of alibi raised by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal requirements for proving a dying declaration, including the need to produce the scribe of the declaration and ensure the mental fitness of the deceased at the time of recording the statement. The court also highlighted the burden of proof on the prosecution and the importance of evaluating the evidence in support of the plea of alibi.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 RPC but upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A RPC. The appeal was dismissed in that regard.
1. This appeal is by one Kala Ram who has been convicted under sections 498-A and 302 RPC by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu vide judgment and order dated 30.04.2011. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000 under Section 302 RPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/ under Section 498-A RPC.
2. Heard. We have perused the record.
3. On 11.10.2007, Sharda Devi, the wife of the appellant, received severe burn injuries in an incident which took place in their house at village, Marjhali within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Gharota of Jammu district. She was rushed to Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu from where she was shifted to Army Hospital, Satwari Jammu. On 12.10.2007, Head Constable (HC), Kuldeep Kumar, who was deputed from the above said Police station, recorded her statement in the Army Hospital. She stated, briefly, that her husband Kala Ram (Appellant) and his parents, Bikru Ram and Taro Devi had been harassing and beating her for bringing more dowry. Her husband had been insisting that she should bring a Motorcycle for him from her parents. She also stated that on 11.10.2007, her husband after hatching a conspiracy with his parents doused her with petrol and set her ablaze with the intention of causing her death. This statement of the victim was registered as FIR No. 58/2007 under section 307,498-A, 109 RPC and investigation commenced. The victim, who had suffered 90 per cent burn injuries, succumbed to the injuries in the Army hospital on 16.10.2007. Investigation was carried out by the SHO. Police Station, Gharota. On completion of the investigation charge sheet under Sections 302, 498-A & 109 RPC was preferred against the appellant (A-l) and his parents, Bikru Ram (A-2) and Taro Dev (A-3) in the Committal Court. After completion of formalities connected with the fact that appellant was an Army personnel, case was committed for trial and came to be assigned to the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu.
4. Learned trial Court after finding prima facie case under sections 302 and 498-A RPC against the appellant (A-l) and under section 498-A against A-2 and A-3, framed charges against them. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution thus examined 13 out of the 16 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. The witnesses examined are; Sham Lal (PW-1), Natha Ram (P-2), Sanjay Kumar (P-3), Ravi Kumar (P-4), Yudhvir Singh (P-5), Garu Ram(P-6), Manohar Lal (P-7), HC Harvesh Kumar (P-8), Kunti Devi (P-9), Vinod Singh (P-10), L/Nk Sanjay Kumar (P-13), Sukhdev Singh Patwari (P-14) and Dr. K. K. Thakur (P-15). The statement of the deceased recorded in the hospital on 12. 10. 2007 was relied upon by the persecutions as her dying declaration. Statements of the appellant and A-2 were recorded in terms of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) whereas, A-3 has expired during the trial. Accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.
5. Learned trial Court, firstly, after considering the evidence as regards the offence under section 498-A RPC, held that prosecution has succeeded in proving charge of cruelty under section 498-A RPC against A-l (Appellant) but there was no cogent evidence to prove the offence of cruelty against A-2. Learned Court after considering the evidence as regards the offence under section 302 RPC further held that prosecution has proved its case against appellant (A-l) and therefore, while acquitting A-2, held the appellant guilty, convicted him under sections 320 and 498-A RPC and imposed the sentence as stated above.
6. As regards the offence under section 498-A RPC learned trial Court has relied upon the evidence rendered by PW- l(father of the deceased) PW 9 (mother of the deceased), PW-6 (brother of the deceased) and PW-7 (cousin of the deceased).
7. While dealing with the charge under section 302 RPC, learned trial Court started with ruling out the po
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
