MATHUR J. - (1.) FIVE accused persons, namely, Vikas, Shripat, Mst. Sohan Bai, Mst. Joti and Smt. Yojana @ Dalda were put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 130/96 on the charge of the murder and dowry death of Mst. Neeta w/o Vikas. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment dated 1. 8. 97 convicted the first appellant Vikas for offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo three months' imprisonment. All the five accused persons have been acquitted for the offence u/s. 302/120 B IPC. However, the first appellant Vikas, second appellant Shripat and third appellant Mst. Sohan Bai have also been convicted for offence u/s. 304 B IPC. Each of them have been sentenced to 10 years' R. I. They have also been convicted for offence u/s. 498 A IPC and sentenced to one year's R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo three months' imprisonment. Mst. Jyoti and Mst. Yojana @ Dalda have been acquitted for the offence u/s. 304 B and 498 A IPC. First appellant Vikas has also been convicted for offence u/s. 364 IPC and has been sentenced to two years' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo three months' R. I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE facts of the case as disclosed during the trial are as follows:- THE first appellant Vikhas was married to deceased Mst. Neeta on 10. 03. 1988. THE second appellant Shripat and third appellant Mst. Sohan Bai are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased Mst. Neeta. It is alleged that the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry brought by Smt. Neeta. THErefore, she was being ill-treated and tortured, she gave birth to a female child at her parents house. THE husband and the in-laws kept the female child with them and turn her out from the house. However, Vikas used to visit Mst. Neeta with her bady. THEy also used to go out with the baby. It is alleged that on 28. 06. 1990 at about 7 p. m. when Mst. Neeta was at the residence of P. W. 3 Smt. Kamala Bai, accused Vikas went there and as usual they went out on a motor bike. On the next day morning when P. W. 10 Sanjay went to the house of Vikas for delivery of medicines for Mst. Neeta, he was told that she was not in the house. A search was made, but it did not yield anything, and therefore, a F. I. R. Ex. P/4 was lodged by P. W. 9 Narendra Lal at Police Station, Banswara. THE police registered a case for offences u/s. 498 A, 364, 302, 302/120-B and 304 B/120 IPC. Accused Vikas was arrested on 1st July 1990 vide Ex. P/40. In pursuance of the information given by him, the dead body of Mst. Neeta was recovered from the river Mahi. THE police prepared the inquest and send the dead body for post mortem. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the five accused persons for the aforesaid offences. Accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 19 witnesses and produced certain documents. The accused persons in their statement u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. Six witnesses were examined by the defence. The trial court analysing the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed above. We have heard Mr. B. N. Calla, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have scanned the prosecution evidence carefully. P. W. 14 Dr. Vijay Kumar stated that for autopsy of the dead body of Mst. Neeta, a Board was constituted and he was one of the members of the same. He has proved the Post Mortem Report Ex. P/8. He has also stated that the dead body was decomposed and there was wrinkling of skin. The Board found that the neck of the deceased was freely mobile and there was a fracture of 7th cervical vertebra. The Board also found spinal cord and membrane torned up at the level of 7th cervical vertebra. In the opinion of the Board, Mst. Neeta died due to severe injury to cervical region and inhalation of water due to drowning. The accused Vikas on the spot identified the dead body. The body was also identified by P. W. 7 Bhagwati Lal and P. W. 9 Narendra Lal. Thus, it is established that Mst. Neeta died of homicidal death. It is contended by Mr. B. N. Calla, learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the appellants u/s. 304 B and 498 A is not sustainable as there is no evidence that soon before the death, Mst. Neeta was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband or his relatives. It is also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in that regard is of general nature. The prosecution has not led convincing evidence to establish that deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (1 ). He has also referred to number of decisions of the single Bench of this Court. On analysis, following are the ingredients of Sec. 304-B IPC:- (1) when the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury. (2) occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; (3) and the aforesaid two facts sprints within 7 years of girl's marriage; (4) and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative; and (5) this is in connection with the demand of dowry.
(3.) IN the instant case, the prosecution has established that Mst. Neeta died of unnatural death and the death was within the period of 7 years of marriage. The only question which requires for consideration is ``whether she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death and whether the same was for or in connection with the demand of dowry''. IN this connection, the prosecution has produced P. W. 2 Ramesh Chandra, P. W. 3 Mst. Kamala Bai, P. W. 7 Bhagwati Lal, P. W. 9 Narendra Lal and P. W. 12 Mst. Hetkanwar. P. W. 12 Het Kanwar has stated that her daughter Mst. Neeta was married to accused Vikas. After 7 days of the marriage, Sohan Bai, Jyoti, Dalda, Vikas and Shripat turned out her daughter from the house saying that she had not brought sufficient dowry. Her daughter stayed in her house for about one and half month. Thereafter, her husband P. W. 9 Narendra, P. W. 7 Bhagwati Lal and P. W. 5 Ramesh took her to her in-laws house. She was again sent back to her house on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan saying that "rsjs ek cki us D;k fn;k gs'' Her elder brother-in-law again took Mst. Neeta and left her in-laws house after 15 days. After 8 days she was again turned out from the house by accused Vikas saying that on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, her parents had given him only Rs. 200/ -. Her daughter Mst. Neeta returned to the house. She disclosed that she was being beaten by her husband Vikas, both the sister-in-laws Jyoti and Dalda. Thereafter, they went to the house of the in-laws of Neeta to leave her, but they did not accept her. On the occasion of Deepawali, accused Vikas made a demand of golden ring. They could arrange one ring. They had also given certain sarees for the mother-in-law of Mst. Neeta. Thereafter, Mst. Neeta gave birth to a female child. The delivery took place at her parents residence. After delivery, accused Mst. Sohan Bai made a demand of silver kadas, five pairs of silver Toriya and clothes for the female child. That demand was made by them. Certain clothes were given, but they were not liked by the mother-in-law. After Holi, Mst. Neeta went to her in-laws house but she was again turned out after 15 days. She has also stated that all the accused persons used to beat Mst. Neeta and then turned out from the house. She has also given some instances of torture to Mst. Neeta by the accused persons. They kept the child with them and again turned out Mst. Neeta from the house. P. W. 9 Narendra Lal has stated that her daughter Mst. Neeta was married to accused Vikas. To satisfy the demand, lot of ornaments were given to the accused persons at the time of the betrothal ceremony. They have also made demand of dowry at the time of marriage. After 5-7 days, a issue was raised with respect to the clothes given to the daughter of accused's sister. Mst. Neeta was tortured on the said issue. They purchased the saree of Rs. 800/-and gave to the in-laws of Mst. Neeta to satisfy their demand. They again raised a demand of the stitching charges of the clothes. A sum of Rs. 800/-was paid against the stitching charges. A sum of Rs. 200/-was given on the occasion of Rakhi. Accused Vikas made a demand of ring, which was also made. Thereafter, her daughter Mst. Neeta became pregnant and as such it was not possible for her to take up domestic work. The accused persons used to torture her. They used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. The food was also not given to her. She was being beaten by the accused persons. After Deepawali, he alongwith his brothers went to leave Mst. Neeta to the house of the accused persons. They gave them Rs. 500/-on the occasion of Deepawali. They raised demand of T. V. and fan. He has also stated that Mst. Neeta was harassed and tortured by the accused persons. In the month of January, she delivered a female child. On the occasion of Holi, they made a demand of golden chain. He also stated that the accused persons kept with them the baby of Mst. Neeta and turned her out from the house. ;