MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) THE appellant Smt. Jai Devi has been convicted by Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Sitapur in Session Trial No.818/98, decided on 09.07.2004, whereby she has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 498 -A IPC and a fine of Rs.2,000/ - has also been imposed on her and in case of non -payment of fine, she has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months.
(2.) AS per prosecution case, the informant Murlidhar Dwivedi lodged an FIR with the allegation that her daughter was married to Parmanand about five years prior to the occurrence. The husband of her daughter as well as other members of his family have always been treating her with cruelty and have been demanding additional dowry. The occurrence took place on 08.03.1988, when the informant received an information that her daughter was admitted in the hospital. When the informant reached the hospital, he found his daughter admitted in the hospital, who on being asked as to what had happened, she told that the appellant and other accused -persons physically assaulted her on the day of "Holi" and, thereafter they put her on fire. The informant immediately rushed to the Police Station and lodged an FIR. The police, on the basis of the FIR, registered a case against the appellant and other accused -persons and started investigation. However, the daughter of the informant died on 16.05.1988. The police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellant and other accused -persons. The prosecution examined three witnesses during trial and the learned trial court, on the basis of the evidence on record, did not find any evidence of dowry death and acquitted the accused -persons of the charge under Section 304 -B IPC. The co -accused Amresh was also acquitted of all the charges but the appellant was found guilty of the offence of demand of dowry and cruel treatment to the deceased. She was, therefore, convicted under Section 498 -A IPC.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Zeba Islam Siddiqui, learned AGA for the State. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had come up with the case that the deceased was being treated with cruelly for demand of dowry and she was killed by setting her on fire. However, the learned trial court did not find the evidence of the prosecution worthy of reliance and concluded that on 04.03.1988, the deceased caught fire while cooking food. She remained under treatment for about two months and thereafter she died as a result of burn injuries. The learned trial court further concluded that it was not at all proved that the deceased was killed for demand of dowry. However, the learned trial court came to the conclusion and recorded a finding that the appellant was guilty of demand of dowry while as a matter of fact there was no reliable evidence with regard to demand of dowry. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is the "Jethani" of the deceased. The informant, who was examined as PW -2 has stated in so many words in his examination -in -chief that there was repeated demand of dowry by the appellant and other members of her family and the deceased was being physically assaulted in order to fulfill the demand of dowry but during his cross -examination, he stated that no dowry was settled at the time of marriage and even after several years of marriage and repeated demand of dowry, he did not make any complaint to any one with regard to the demand of dowry. Another witness examined as PW -1 has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. There is no other prosecution witness to corroborate the testimony of PW -2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that when a part of the statement of this witness was not believed by the learned trial court then the other part of the statement of the same witness could not have been believed. There is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant because the law of evidence is that even if a part of the statement of the witness is not believed to be true, the other part of his statement may be believed. But in such cases, the Court has to be extra -conscious to examine the testimony of such witness and come to the conclusion as to whether a part of the statement of such witness should be believed or not. The informant Murlidhar Dwivedi, who is also father of the deceased has exaggerated the occurrence in his examination -in -chief, but when he was cross -examined in detail by the defence, he admitted that even after several years of marriage and repeated cruel treatment to his daughter, he did not lodge any FIR and also did not complain to any one. The statement of this witness discloses that the accused -persons had been demanding a Rajdoot Motorcycle in dowry. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant being a lady and "Jethani" could not have demanded a motorcycle. Thus, the charge with regard to demand of dowry and cruel treatment is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant being "Jethani" of the deceased is entitled to get the benefit of doubt and is liable to be acquitted of the charge.;