- (1.) The abovenamed accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 6/98 (76/97) by which he acquitted the accused-appellants of the charge for the offence under Section 406, IPC, but convicted them for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC and sentenced each of them in the following manner : Name of accused-appellantsConvicted under SectionSentence awarded 1. Mahavir Singh304-B, IPCTen years' imprison-ment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo impri-sonment of six months. 498-A, IPCTwo years' imprison-ment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of pay- ment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. 2. Hari Singh 3. Smt. Sarjeet Kaur304, IPCSeven years' impri-sonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo impri-sonment for three months. 498-A, IPCOne year imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprison-ment for one month. The above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows : On 18.6.1997, PW 6 Man Singh presented a written complaint Ex. P/1 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh against the accused- appellants for committing the offence under Section 498-A, IPC stating inter alia that his daughter Karnail Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married with the accused-appellant No. 1 Mahaveer five years back and in that marriage, he, as per his capacity and status, gave so many articles in dowry, but since he did not give cash, therefore, accused-appellants were not happy. The relationship of the accused-appellants with the deceased is as follows : Name of accused appellantsRelationship with the deceased (1) MahavirHusband (2) hari SinghFather-in-law (3) Smt. Sarjeet KaurMother-in-law It was further stated in the complaint that after the marriage of the deceased, the accused-appellants used to demand Rs. 15,000/- from the deceased and she used to tell them that since her father PW 6 Man Singh is a poor person, therefore, he was not in a position to satisfy that demand and upon this, accused-appellants used to beat and harass deceased. It was further stated in the complaint that before two and half years back, a son was born to the deceased and on that auspicious occasion, so many articles were given and, thereafter, when deceased went to her in-laws' house, she was beaten by the accused-appellants. It was further stated in the complaint that before one month back when PW 6 Man Singh went to Jandawali in her in-laws' house to meet deceased, at that time, deceased told him that accused-appellants used to beat her and further used to say that bring money otherwise they would kill her by burning and he also tried his best to satisfy accused- appellants and advised them not to harass and torture deceased, but the accused-appellants refused to accept his advice and told him first bring Rs. 15,000/-. What had happened in her in-laws' house, PW 6 Man Singh told every thing to his wife PW 8 Angrej Kaur (mother of the deceased) and, thereafter, PW 8 Angrej Kaur also went to her in-laws' house to meet deceased where deceased told her that she should be saved from the accused-appellants, but she also advised her to live there. It was further stated in the complaint that in the last month i.e. on 24.5.1997, D.W./4 Jaila Singh, Jeth of the deceased, came to his house and informed that deceased had been burnt by the accused-appellants and she was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, PW 6 Man Singh went to the hospital at Hanumangarh and found her daughter (deceased) in burnt and unconscious condition and the doctor advised him that she should be taken to either Delhi or Jaipur, but since he was not in a position to take her to such big places, therefore, he took her to Ganganagar Hospital, where after 7-8 days, deceased told her father, PW 6 Man Singh that she was burnt by the accused-appellants by pouring kerosene oil on her body. It was further stated in the complaint that a report about the alleged incident was also lodged in the Police Station Hanumangarh Town and when he again went to Police Station Hanumangarh Town, Police told him to approach the Court and that is why, he has filed the present complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The said complaint was sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanu-mangarh under Section 156(3), Cr PC for investigation to the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction on the same day i.e. on 18.6.1997 and on that complaint, a regular FIR Ex. P/2 was chalked out on 20.6.1997 at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and since deceased died on the intervening night of 24- 25.6.1997 in the hospital at Sri Ganganagar, therefore, Section 304-B, IPC was further added. It may be stated here that when the deceased was admitted in burnt condition in the hospital at Hanumangarh on 24.5.1997, she was got medically examined by PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya and her medical report is Ex. P/5, where PW 12, Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya found superficial extensive burns over the body of the deceased and in that report, it was further stated that accidental burn dangerous to life, Burns as a result of flame. It may be stated here that when deceased was shifted to hospital at Ganganagar from the Hanumangarh Hospital, at that time, statement of the deceased was recorded on 29.5.1997 by Kalyan Singh, ASI and the same is Ex.D/10, where deceased stated that when she was preparing food on stove and because of bursting of stove, her jumpher caught fire suddenly and she made hue and cry and upon this, her Jeth DW 4 Jaila Singh rushed towards her and by putting the cushion, fire was extinguished and at that time, accused-appellants were also there and she was not burnt by anybody nor she had any dispute with anybody. The same words which were narrated by deceased to Kalyan Singh were also put in writing in the police proceedings and, thereafter, that parcha Ex. D/10 was produced before the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction and after perusing the statement of the deceased Ex. D./10, SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction Kailash Meena came to the conclusion that no case was made out and, therefore, he closed the case. Another striking feature of this case is that on 23.6.1997, Kailash Meena, SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction also recorded the statement of deceased and the same is Ex. P/13, in which she has made allegations against the accused-appellants that she was burnt by the accused appellants by pouring kerosene on her body. After death of the deceased, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by the Medical Board on 25.6.1997 and the post mortem report is Ex. P/1, where the Medical Board opined that cause of death of the deceased was Toximia due to extensive burns. During investigation, site plan Ex. P/4 was prepared by PW 11 Durga Dutt, Dy. S.P. The accused-appellants Mahavir Singh, Hari Singh and Smt. Sarjeet Kaur were arrested through arrest memos Ex. P/10, Ex. P/11 and Ex. P. 12 respectively. In the above circumstances, after usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 406, IPC against the accused-appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanu-mangarh, from where the case was com- mitted to the Court of Session, Hanumangarh. On 19.2.1998, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh framed charges for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 406, IPC against the accused-appellants, the charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused- appellants under Section 313, Cr PC were recorded. In defence, eight witnesses were produced by the accused-appellants. After conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh through his judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 acquitted the accused-appellants of the charge for the offence under Section 406, IPC, but convicted them for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC and sentenced them in the manner as stated above holding inter alia : 1. That learned Addl. Sessions Judge placed reliance on the statement of the deceased Ex. P/13 recorded on 23.6.1997 by Kailash Meena, SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction. 2. That he did not place any reliance on another so-called statement Ex. D/10 of the deceased recorded on 29.5.1997 by Kalyan Singh, ASI. 3. That prosecution has proved, its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, the present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants.
(3.) In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants : 1. That in this case, alleged incident took place on 24.5.1997 and on the same day, PW 6 Man Singh, father of the deceased was informed about incident by DW 4 Jaila Singh; but no report was lodged by PW 6 Man Singh till 18.6.1997 and on 18.6.1997, a complaint for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC was lodged against the accused-appellants by PW 6 Man Singh in the Court and thus, there is delay in lodging the report and on this ground alone, the case of the prosecution should be rejected. 2. That when deceased was admitted in the hospital, she had given statement Ex. P/10 before the police in which she has clearly mentioned that when she was preparing food on stove, all of a sudden stove burst and it gave excess fire which hit her and she received fire burn injuries and, therefore, it was a case of accidental death and the case of the prosecution that she was burnt by the accused-appellants is an after- thought version. 3. That PW 12, Dr. Vinod Maha-wadiya, who examined deceased on 24.5.1997, the day she caught fire, has admitted in cross-examination that deceased told him that while preparing food, her clothes caught fire and thus, the statement of PW 12 Dr. Vinod Mahawadiya further strengthened the case on the point that it was a case of accidental death. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the accused appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them.;