JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on behalf of accused- appellants - Raghuveer @ Pappu S/o Chhotey Lal and Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Chhotey Lal, is directed against the judgment and order dated 1. 8. 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, in Sessions Case No. 35/2000, whereby both the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, to ten years rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a typed report (Exhibit P-1) was lodged by PW-1 Heera Lal at Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar, alleging therein that on 19. 6. 1997 he got his daughter Bimla married with Raghuveer. Bimla's husband Raghuveer, father-in-law Chhotey Lal, mother-in-law Geeta Devi and sister-in-law (Jethani) Indra Devi have continuously been making demand of dowry after the marriage, but I had no money to satisfy their demand. On 9. 9. 2000 at about 11. 30 AM an information was given to him of his daughter calling him. Thereupon, he, along with other persons, left for the village Narsa (Vaidh-kidhani), on arrival there they saw his daughter Bimla lying dead. Her body was burnt badly. Inquest-report was prepared and thereon their signatures were obtained. On the basis of above report, an FIR No. 154/2000 (Exhibit P- 2) was registered under sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC, and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against appellants for the offence under Section 498-A and 304-B, IPC. The learned trial court framed charge against both the appellants under Section 304-B, IPC, which was denied and the trial was claimed. The learned trial court, after considering the prosecution as well as defence evidence on the record, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S. S. Choudhary, contended that the learned trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in its correct perspective along with other circumstances of the case and wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants. He contended that as per the admitted position of the case itself the incident took place on 9. 9. 2000, whereas the typed report (Exhibit P-1) was lodged on 12. 9. 2000 with a delay of three days, and the said delay has not been explained satisfactorily. The complainant party was very much present for all the time i. e. before and at the time of funeral of Bimla took place. The complainant-party also participated in the enquiry initiated under Section 174 of the Cr. P. C. by Sub Divisional Magistrate. The inquest-report was prepared in presence of the father and other family members of Bimla, but they did not make any complaint to Sub Divisional Magistrate. He further contended that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it is clear that no specific instance of demand of dowry has been stated. General allegations have been made by the prosecution witnesses including the parents of the deceased about demand of dowry. He further contended that from the prosecution evidence it is clear that it is a case of death of deceased Bimla either in accident or suicide committed by Bimla herself and on the same day Bimla's father-in-law Chhotey Lal lodged a written- report (Exhibit D-7) at Police Station Ranoli, and a case was registered under Section 174, Cr. P. C. Shri Chhotey Lal also sent one Madan Kumawat immediately to inform the parents of Bimla at Lakshmangarh, about the incident, and to ask them to arrive there immediately; on this information they came but no complaint was made by anyone. It is further contended that accused Raghuveer himself sustained injury while rescuing Bimla. It is further contended that Kaushalya (PW-11) is cousin-sister of the deceased but she did not support the prosecution case. PW-1 Heera Lal, in his statement (Exhibit D-1) recorded before the police under Section 161, Cr. P. C. , stated that there was no demand of dowry by accused-persons. It is further contended that PW-1 Heera Lal took a loan of Rs. 40,000/- from Chhotey Lal (DW-1), the father of accused Raghuveer, at the time of marriage of Bimla with Raghuveer, as Heera Lal was financially weak at that time and was not in a position to perform the marriage of his daughter Bimla with Raghuveer and, Chhotey Lal wanted to go abroad after getting the marriage of his son Raghuveer with Bimla, performed. The said amount was not refunded by Heera Lal to Chhotey Lal even for a long time after the marriage. The so-called demand of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- was in respect of the amount advanced by Chhotey Lal to Heera Lal, which cannot be treated as demand of dowry in connection with marriage of Bimla. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that, although from the prosecution evidence it is not proved that there was any demand of dowry by any of the accused-persons, even if the statement of PW-1 Heera Lal is read correctly then the allegation of demand of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- appears to have been made by accused Raghuveer and not by accused Smt. Geeta, the mother-in- law of deceased, therefore, in any circumstance, the trial court has committed an illegality in convicting co-accused Smt. Geeta in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that accused Raghuveer was arrested way back on 19. 9. 2000 and he is in custody till date as he was not granted bail during trial and during pendency of the appeal, therefore, he has already undergone the imprisonment of about six years and five months, therefore, his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. So far as Smt. Geeta Devi is concerned, it is contended that she remained in jail for about 25 days during trial and for a period of three months and 21 days after conviction by the trial court and before suspension of her sentence by the High Court, therefore, she has already undergone the imprisonment of about four months and sixteen days and her sentence may be reduced looking to the nature of prosecution evidence against her and other facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is sufficient prosecution evidence on the record to connect the accused-persons with the crime and the learned trial court is right in convicting and sentencing them. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor also referred the prosecution evidence and on that basis it is contended that from the statement of PW-1 itself it is clear that there was demand of dowry by the appellants and accused-persons killed Smt. Bimla by pouring kerosene-oil upon her and from the medical evidence it is clear that she sustained 80 to 90% burn injuries. So far as sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court against accused-appellants is concerned, it is contended that the learned trial court has rightly awarded the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and the appeal filed by the accused-persons is liable to be dismissed. ;