The need for evidence to prove cruelty and harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, soon before the death of the deceased, to sustain the conviction under section 304B IPC.

Judgment

Reserved on ::: February 05, 2024 Pronounced on ::: March 14, 2024

1. Vide order dated 14.03.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the whereabouts and present status of the accused appellants from the concerned Police Station.

2. In compliance of the order dated 14.03.2023, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted the death certificates of accused appellant No.2- Mool Singh s/o Bachan Singh and the accused appellant No.4- Smt. Inder Kanwar w/o Mool Singh.

3. Accordingly, the criminal appeal qua accused appellant No.2 Mool Singh s/o Bachan Singh and the accused appellant No.4- Smt. Inder Kanwar w/o Mool Singh stands abated.

4. So far as the criminal appeal filed by rest of accused appellants i.e. accused appellants No.1 and 3 namely; Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh, is concerned, same is being heard and finally decided by this Judgment.

5. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.1994 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.94/1990, whereby, both the above-named accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

U/s. 498A IPC:

Three Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellants has to further undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment.

U/s. 304B IPC:

Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Smt. Jugal Kanwar (PW12) submitted a written report (Ex.P1)

at Police Station Gudha to this effect that she resident of Village Chanvara. The complainant alleged that that Smt. Sushil Kanwar who was her younger sister had been married a year back with Sohan Singh s/o Mool Singh. It was alleged by the complainant that her father-in-law Mool Singh, her ‘Jeth’ Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh and her mother-in- law for or in in connection with giving less demand in dowry used to give beating to her and daily they used to give threatening to kill her. She further alleged that in the last month they also quarreled. Upon this the father of Sushil Kanwar came to village. Today i.e. on 07.07.1990 at around 3:30 PM she heard that Sushil Kanwar has been killed after burning her by her father-in-law Mool Singh and her Jeth- Mataeen and Sumer Singh and her mother-in-law and they were preparing for funeral. The complainant further mentioned in the written report that their ‘dhani’ is situated at the distance away in fields.

On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P1), an FIR No.92/1990 (Ex.P14) was registered for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC.

7. The police after investigation submitted charge- sheet against the accused appellants for the offences under sections 201, 302, 304B and 498A IPC in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh.

8. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellants for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC and in the alternative under sections 302 and 201 IPC, to which they denied and opted for trial.

9. From the prosecution side, the statements of twelve witnesses were recorded and certain documents were exhibited.

10. The statements of the accused appellants were recorded under section 313 CrPC. The accused appellants in their statements have denied about the allegations levelled against them and deposed that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.

11. The learned trial court vide its judgment 27.01.1994 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the offences as mentioned above.

12. Ms. Savita Nathawat, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants submitted that the allegations against each of the accused appellants have to be individually established. There is no charge against the accused appellants either for the