JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal on behalf of three appellants, namely, (1) Harswaroop S/o Shri Sagar, (2) Sagar S/o Shri Chirmoli and (3) Kela W/o Shri Sagar, is directed against the judgment and order dated 13. 11. 2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deeg (Bharatpur) in Sessions Case No. 32/1999, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 304-B, IPC, to undergo 7 years simple imprisonment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a written- report dated 16. 12. 1998 (Exhibit P-9) was lodged at the Police Station Kotwali - Deeg by PW-8 Motiram about the death of his daughter Imarti Devi at her matrimonial house under abnormal circumstances. It was mentioned in the report that his daughter Imarti Devi married with Harswaroop in June, 1995, he gave sufficient dowry in her marriage, but her husband Harswaroop, mother-in-law Kela and father-in-law Sagar were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage, therefore, they used to harass and assault his daughter. They demanded motorcycle and other silver and gold ornaments but he was unable to give the same. It was also mentioned that about one-and half- year ago Imarti Devi gave birth to a male-child and on the birth-ceremony called 'chhuchhak' a demand of motorcycle, gold chain, ring, silver ornaments and 21 'saaries' were made. But, he shown his inability to send all these articles. It was also mentioned that on 15. 12. 1998 he received a message that his daughter has been killed by her in-laws by setting her on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her body. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 728/1998 was registered under Section 304-B/34, IPC. The postmortem of Imarti Devi was conducted. The accused appellants were arrested. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge- sheet against all the three appellants under Section 304-B/34, IPC. The trial court framed charge against the accused-appellants under Section 304-B, IPC, which was denied and trial was claimed. The trial court, after considering the evidence on the record, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that two ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC, are proved in the case that Imarti Devi died within 7 years of her marriage and she died under abnormal circumstances. But, so far as the third ingredient that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or the relatives of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry in connection with her marriage, is concerned, the same is not proved from the prosecution evidence and the learned trial court, without considering the relevant evidence in this connection wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants. He further contended that the marriage of deceased took place in June, 1995, and, as per the prosecution evidence, it is clear that about one-and-half-year ago of her death, she gave birth to a male-child and birth ceremony was to be celebrated which is called 'chhuchhak', and as per customs of local societies number of formalities are required to be performed by the parents of Imarti Devi, and, in case, any demand was made in connection with 'chhuchhak' then the said demand cannot be said to be a 'demand of dowry' in connection with her marriage. The trial court misconstrued the evidence of demand relating to 'chhuchhak' as demand of dowry in connection with marriage and wrongly convicted the appellants under Section 304- B, IPC, therefore, their conviction is liable to be set-aside and the accused-persons are entitled to be acquitted.
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court and contended that Smt. Imarti Devi died within 7 years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances, and, from the prosecution evidence, it is clear that demand of dowry, which was made at the time of marriage, continued till the date of her death and the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, demand of dowry, and the trial court rightly convicted the accused-appellants. THErefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and minutely scanned the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial court. There is no dispute that the marriage of deceased Imarti Devi took place with the appellant Harswaroop in the year 1995 and she died on 15. 12. 1998 at her matrimonial house. As per the postmortem report Exhibit P-13 the cause of death, in the opinion of the Medical Board was as under:- " In our opinion the cause of death is shock as a result of extensive burns along with attempted throttling. However, viscera are preserved and sent to chemical examiner (F. S. L. Jaipur) for detection of common poisons. " ;