SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal by appellants Khem Chand @ Pappu and Smt. Prabhati arises out of the judgment and order dated 11. 10. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, thereby convicting the appellants for offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
(2.) ON 26. 7. 98 at 11. 10 AM complainant Moti Ram submitted a typed report, Ex. P3 at Police Station Sadar, Sikar alleging therein that he had performed the marriage of his neice Santosh daughter of his brother late Birma Ram. According t him his brother Birma Ram was not alive at the time of marriage and that he had given dowry beyond his capacity but still the members of her in laws family were not satisfied with the dowry and started harassing her mentally and physically. Whenever she visited her parents house, she complained of torturing, belabouring and not providing food on account of less dowry given at the time of marriage and that complaint, his brother and other family members pacified her that every thing would be all right by afflux of time. ON some occasions, the compliant and his family members gave 5 and 10 thousand rupees to her in laws with a view that good sense will prevail and they would not torture her. In this respect, the villagers and members of her maternal side arranged meetings of their society and tried to make the members of her in laws' family understand, but of no avail. According to the report, about six days back i. e. , on 21. 7. 98, her father-in-law came there to bring her back. ON that occasion she asked the complainant not to send her as they would kill her. She had stayed at village Chelasi and Gokulpura for about 2-2 & 1/2 months prior to 21. 7. 98. ON 21. 7. 98 her father in law assured that she would not be tortured in future. At that time, Bhagirath Singh, Ramdeva Ram, Pitha Ram, Moti Ram and other family members were present there. Believing on the assurance, they sent Santosh with her father in law. She had a daughter. The complainant then alleged that Pappu, Dhuda Ram, Prabhati, Birbal and Gordhan of her in laws family caused her death and threw her into the well and that they abated her to commit suicide. According to the complainant they were not informed of the death of Santosh and they were informed of the death of Santosh and they were informed by two persons of village Khakholi. On the basis of above written report, police registered a case for offence under Section 498-A and 304b IPC vide FIR Ex. P4 and proceeded with the investigation and having completed investigation, submitted challan against the accused. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304b IPC against the accused appellants. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After the prosecution evidence was complete, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. In defence two witnesses, namely DW1 Isharram and DW2 Hanuman Singh were examined. At the conclusion of trial the learned Trial Court found the appellants guilty of having committed offence under Section 304-B IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated herein above.
(3.) IN assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the Trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant under Section 304-B IPC. Referring the prosecution evidence, learned counsel argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. According to him, there are major contradictions in the statement of prosecution witness which go to the route of the case. The Trial Court ought not to have placed reliance on the statements of witnesses which are full of contradictions, in arriving at a conclusion of guilt against the appellants under Section 304-B IPC. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above argument. The attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, one of the main ingredient of the offence which is required to be established beyond doubt is that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment `in connection with demand for dowry'. The arrive at a just conclusion whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, it would be profitable to scan the relevant evidence. PW1 Mohan Lal, uncle of deceased who managed the marriage of deceased with the help of Moti Ram and other members of the family has deposed that after marriage, Santosh (deceased) started visiting her in laws' house. Whenever she happened to be at her parents house, she used to inform that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and Dever used to beat and tell her that nothing was given in dowry and had the marriage been at some other place, they would have received much more dowry. According to the witness, he and his cousin Moti Ram went to Chudoli and made Dhuda Ram (father-in- law) understand. But Dhuda Ram was aggrieved of less dowry being given and demanded scooter. The witness deposed that with a view to get rid of day to day problem, he gave 15000/- in two installments of Rs. 10000/- and 5000/- about two years back, with the request that they themselves should purchase the scooter and not to harass her in future. He further deposed that about two months prior to her death, when her brother Bana Ram @ Anil had gone to bring her back he found that her mother-in-law and father-in-law were beating her. On being asked as to why they were beating her, the in laws in turn replied that they will continue to do so. In cross examination, the witness stated Dhuda Ram (father-in-law), Prabhati (mother-in-law), husband and Dever murder Mst. Santosh and then threw her into the well. The witness could not state the date and month on which Rs. 10,000/- were paid. However, according to him, Rs. 10000/- were given after one year of the marriage. The witness was not able to state as to on which date Rs. 5000/- were given. According to the witness, he had paid Rs. 15000/- to Dhuda Ram and that he had stated this fact to the police but the same does not find place in his statement Ex. D1. He admitted that the fact of witnessing beating by Bana Ram had already been disclosed by Bana Ram to him even prior to filing the first information report. Pw2 Bana Ram, brother of deceased has deposed that about two months prior to her death he had visited her in laws' house and saw that her mother-in-law and husband were beating his sister Santosh. Reference of this witness does not find place in the FIR. In has not stated anything about demand of dowry. ;