JAGAT SINGH,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24th January, 1998 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 15/97 whereby accused appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 498A and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/ -. in default of payment whereof further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 302. IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment doing with fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default of payment whereof to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE charges against the accused appellant are that he subjected his wife Mst. Chand Kanwar to cruelty because his demand of dowry has not been fulfilled and in the midnight of May 28 -29, 1997, in his own residential house at Nagori Gate, Jodhpur, by sprinkling kerosine oil. he burnt to death not only his wife Chand Kanwar alias Bebi but also his 6 years' old son Lucky and 3 years' old daughter Puja. Upon pleading not guilty and claiming trial, prosecution examined 22 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. In his statement given under Section 313, Cr. PC. The accused denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him and pleaded that he has falsely been implicated. No evidence in defence was produced. Thereafter, learned trial court with a detailed order, convicted and sentenced accused, as stated above.
(3.) IT is an admitted fact that accused married Mst. Chand Kanwar in the year 1982 and this occurrence took place in May, 1997. For last 14 years, no demand for dowry is proved to have been made. This fact is further fortified by the record available on the file because family members of deceased Mst. Chand Kanwar were informed about the incident by Police immediately after the occurrence. They reached on the spot and documents Exs. P -2 to P -8 were executed by PW -20 Gurbux Singh, S.H.O. Thana Sadar, Jodhpur in their presence but they have not made any complaint to this witness that accused appellant ever made a demand of dowry and subjected his wife to cruelty in lieu thereof.;