- (1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence awarded by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Anoopgarh, Headquarter, Suratgarh in Sessions Case No.7/08 (39/04) dated 17/12/2008, whereby learned trial Court has convicted both the appellants Gurvinder Singh and Smt. Harbans Kaur as under:- Under Section 498A IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default further to undergo for six months simple imprisonment. Under Section 304B IPC-Life imprisonment. and has acquitted co-accused Jangir Singh.
(2.) As per the prosecution story, father of deceased Ravindar Kaur lodged a F.I.R. on 20/07/2004 with Suratgarh Police Station stating therein that his daughter Ravinder Kaur was married with Gurvinder Singh about two and half years back and ample dowry was bestowed, but her in-laws were unpleasant and started demanding dowry by saying that it was insufficient and were demanding gold Kada, fridge and colour T.V. and started harassing his daughter Ravinder Kaur, recitals of beating and organizing of settlement Panchayats have also been made in the FIR, then Gurvinder and his family assured nothing of that nature would be repeated, so they permitted and sent back Ravinder to her in-laws home. On 19/7/2004, they received a telephone call from Suratgarh thana asking to rush to Suratgarh and on arriving at S.G. Hospital, they could know that Ravinder Kaur was referred to Bikaner, where they could know that she was deliberately set ablaze by Gurvinder and his mother-inlaw. Record of the trial Court indicates that I.O. submitted charge-sheet against three accused persons, namely, Gurvinder S/o Jangir Singh, Smt.Harbans Kaur W/o Jangir Singh and Jangir Singh S/o Surjan Singh under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. The prosecution produced twenty witnesses and exhibited twenty six documents in the evidence and further five articles were marked during the trial before the trial Court. The defence did not adduce any testimony and pleaded having been falsely implicated, while examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court culminated the trial awarding sentence to Gurvinder Singh and Harbans Kaur under Sections 498A coupled with Section 304B of IPC and acquitted another co-accused Jangir Singh, as dwelt above.
(3.) While, advancing submissions, learned counsel for the appellants-accused has contended that there are vital contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the deceased has also given two dying declarations, the first one does not indulge the accused persons being non-incriminatory because the deceased victim has uttered that she got accidentally burnt, while preparing tea. PW.12 Jabarjung Singh and PW.14 Mandeep have also disclosed this aspect that deceased was not subjected to cruelty by her in-laws, rather she was inclined to stay and reside alone with her spouse, leaving apart, her other family members of in-laws. Relying upon the following precedents State of Rajasthan vs. Shravan Ram and Anr., 2013 AIR(SC) 1890 , Heeralal vs. State of M.P., 2009 12 SCC 671 , Ranjit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, 2009 1 Supreme 52 , Chinnamma vs. State of Kerala, 2004 2 Supreme 251 , learned counsel has submitted that it is not safe to rely on the subsequent dying declaration and learned trial Court has committed error, while relying upon the subsequent dying declaration, so the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is no error in the impugned judgment. The trial court has correctly passed the impugned judgment, the subsequent dying declaration has been made by the victim without any coercion with her free will, whereas the first dying declaration was made while the victim was under threat of her in-laws, which has rightly been narrated by the victim in her subsequent dying declaration and she was under constant demand of dowry by her in-laws and was subjected to cruelty, so in order to sort-out discontent, panchayats were held and this aspect has also been testified in the evidence. The individuals present during the panchayat have also corroborated that aspect and appellants-accused set deceased ablazed resultantly she died of burn injuries, all the witnesses comprises of the family members of the deceased have repeatedly said that she was being tortured and harassed by her in-laws, so there is no error in the impugned judgment. The appeal does not have got any force, so it be dismissed.;