SUNIL KUMAR GARG - (1.) Both appeal as well as criminal misc. petition are being decided by this judgment, as they arise out of common judgment and order dated 24-2-1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions case No. 25/93. S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 125/97: -
(2.) The above named accused appellants have preferred the appeal No. 125/97 against the judgment and order dated 24-2-1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 25/93 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner : @@ Name of accused appellants Convicted under section Sentence awarded to each accused appellant 1. Arivind Kumar } (Husband of deceased) } 2. Sanwal Chand } 304B, IPC Ten years' (father-in-law of } rigorous deceased } imprisonment. 3.Kanti Lal } (Jeth of deceased) } 4.Bhanwal Lal } -498A, IPC Three years' (Jeth of deceased) } rigorous imprisonment } and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, 5.Chetal Lal } in default of payment (Jeth of deceased) } to fine, to further undergo SI 6.Popal Lal } for one month. (Devar of deceased) } 7.Smt. Bagtu } (mother-in-law of } deceased) } Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. @@
(3.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :- On 7.8.1992 at about 9.00 A.M. PW 5 Parasmal lodged a written report Ex. P/7 before PW12 Shaitan Singh, who was SHO, Police Station Raniwada, District Pali stating inter-alia that his daughter Laxmi, aged about 22 years (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married three years back with accused appellant No. I Arvind Kuraar S/o Sanwal Chand, resident of village Silason. It was further stated in the report that at the time of marriage, as per custom dowry was given and at the time of marriage, 20 tolas gold was also demanded by the accused appellants and the said demand was also fulfilled, It was further stated in the report that for the purpose of delivery, he took the deceased to his house and at that time, Rs. 50,000/-- were also given by him to his son-in-law Arvind Kumar (accused appellant No. 1) and his elder brother and this amount was also not returned back by the accused appellants and they told later on that this amount should be adjusted towards the amount of dowry. It was further stated in the report that ten days back before lodging of the report, he went to her in-laws' house at village Silason and at that time, accused appellants told him that they would not send the deceased unless the demand of dowry was fulfilled and all accused appellants quarreled on this point and therefore, he came back. It was further stated in the report that on the fateful day, accused appellants came to him and told that his daughter (deceased) was having stomach pain and, upon this, he immediately went to the place of occurrence, where he found that deceased had been admitted in the hospital in burnt condition and, therefore, he had full confidence that her daughter (deceased)had been killed by accused appellants for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. On this report, polic FIR Ex. P/8 was chalked out and investigation was got done by PW14 Mahendra Kumar and PW13 Raghuveer Singh. During investigation, by PW11 Dr. Vasudeo, medical examination of the deceased,before her death, was got conducted on 7.8.1992 at about 5.45 A.M. and her medical examination report is Ex.P/11, which shows that deceased was having 90% superficial burns on her body. Thereafter, deceased died on the same day i.e. on 7.8.1992 and post mortem of her dead body was got conducted by R. Hastimal, PW15, who opined that cause of her death was shock due to extensive burns and her post mortem report is Ex.P/16 and the separate paper on which her cause of death was opined by PW 15 Hastimal is Ex.P/17. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 201, IPC in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 27.10.1994, the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore framed charges against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under section 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, four witnesses were produced by the accused appellants. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions. judge through his judgment and order dated 24-2-1997 convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC and sentenced each of them in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia :- 1. That deceased died within seven years of her marriage. 2. That at the time of marriage, accused appellants took 20 tolas gold under pressure. 3. That after marriage, accused appellants demanded Rs. 50,000/- and took Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. 4. That deceased was being tortured and harassed by the accused appellants mentally and physically for and in connection with demand of dowry. 5. That statement of the deceased Ex. D/4, which is alleged to have been recorded by DW2 Arvind Kumar Sengwa as dying declaration on 7-8-1992 was not believed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. That prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC. 7.That in para No. 40 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has also ordered to take departmental action against PW 11 Dr. Vasudeo, PW 12 Shaitan Singh and DW 2 Arvind Kumar. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 24-2-1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. ;