JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal, on behalf of three appellants, namely, (1) Dinesh Kumar @ Leelu S/o Shri Amarsingh @ Phool, (2) Santra W/o Shri Amarsingh and (3) Amarsingh @ Phool Singh S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 12. 6. 2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Kishangarhbas (Alwar), in Sessions Case No. 61/1999, whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced each appellants as under:- Under Section Sentence of Imprisonment 304-B, IPc To undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment 498-A, IPc To undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this criminal appeal are that on 12. 4. 1999 Sarjitsingh (PW-3), the father of deceased Saroj, lodged a written-report (Exhibit P- 1) at Police Station Tijara, alleging therein that marriage of his daughter Saroj took place on 11. 6. 1998 with Dinesh, Resident of Village Gothda; in the marriage he gave Rs. 51,000/- in cash, and 'diwan' bed, sofa-set, Almira, freeze, cooler, television, sewing machine, 101 utensils, clothes etc. The gold and silver ornaments were also given. However, the bridegroom had shown his displeasure in marriage itself for not giving him Hero-Honda motorcycle in dowry. Thereafter Smt. Santra, the mother-in-law of his daughter, also taunted and disgraced her for not giving motorcycle in the marriage; her daughter told him all these when she came back from her matrimonial home. On her returning back to the matrimonial home, she was assured that he will fulfill their demand on the occasion of birth of child. When Saroj again came back, she told that her in-laws are not agreeable to his proposal of giving motorcycle at the time of birth of child. Her mother-in-law Santra, father-in-law Amar Singh and husband Dinesh bitterly ill- treated Saroj at her matrimonial home. Smt. Saroj had been to her inlaws home for three or four times. Once Smt. Saroj also told him about their demand of cash amount to construct house by saying that, in case she wants to live in her matrimonial home, she will have to bring the cash amount for construction of house. It was further alleged in the written-report that on 24th December, 1998 when his son Srawan Kumar went to Gothda to bring her, he was told by her in-laws that unless their demand is fulfilled, they need not come there. They even did not offer food to Srawan and Saroj and ousted them therefrom without providing food. It was further stated in the written-report that on 7. 4. 1999 Dinesh (husband), accompanied by his friend, came and they took Saroj with them. His daughter was weeping and telling him that she has every apprehension of her life. On 8th April, 1999 his son Srawan Kumar had gone to Kakrali to meet her paternal aunt (Bhua) and to bring tractor for crop; he came back through village Gothda meeting with Saroj, who told him that she has been beaten bitterly by her in-laws and even has not been provided food. She also shown him number of injuries on her person. She requested my son to send me there. He planned to go on 11. 4. 1999 i. e. holiday being Sunday. However, on 10. 4. 1999 itself he received a news from his brotherin- law Ratiram that Saroj has been set on fire by her in-laws and she has been killed. Thereafter they went to village Gothda and saw the dead body of Saroj badly burnt. Upon seeing her dead-body, he suffered mental shock and could not lodge the report immediately. He prayed for legal action in the matter immediately. On the basis of above written-report, FIR No. 135/1999 was registered at Police Station Tijara under Sections 498-A and 304- B, IPC, and investigation commenced. It is relevant to mention that Exhibit P-10, the written- report, had already been lodged in the matter on 10. 4. 1999 at Police Station Tijara by one Matadeen Yadav to the effect that Smt. Saroj W/o Dinesh Yadav, whose marriage took place about 10 months ago, has set herself on fire and died due to burns. A murg FIR No. 16/99 was registered under Section 174, Cr. P. C. and an enquiry was made. The site plan (Exhibit P-6) was prepared on 10. 4. 1999, according to which the dead-body was lying in a Pauli/ Chowk (courtyard ). Postmortem of dead-body was conducted and its report is Exhibit P-13; at Serial No. 11 of part IV thereof, it has been mentioned that 'uterus pregnant about twenty weeks size' - External genital organs burnt. The medical board gave the following opinion about cause of death:- " Cause of death - In our opinion death has occurred as a result of shock due to extensive burn of whole body - Antemortem in nature - Duration - within 24 hours. " After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet. The trial court framed charge against the appellants under Sections 498a and 304b of the Indian Penal Code, which were denied and the trial was claimed. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW-1 to PW-14 and also produced documentary evidence Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-13. The accused persons, in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. stated that they have falsely been implicated. However, the defence examined no witness.
(3.) THE trial court, after appreciating the evidence on the record as well as arguments of both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as mentioned above. Shri Anshuman Saxena, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is a delay of 54 hours in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained by the prosecution satisfactorily and the said delay is fatal to the prosecution case. He contended that Smt. Saroj died on 10th April, 1999, whereas the report was lodged on 12th April, 1999, despite the fact that complainant was present even during enquiry under Section 174, Cr. P. C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the police officers, therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR creates doubt on the prosecution case. He further contended that from the prosecution evidence the demand of dowry is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. There are material contradictions in prosecution case in respect of demand of dowry. And, in view of the contradictions, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is liable to be discarded; in his submission, in case the demand of dowry is not proved, the entire prosecution case goes and accusedpersons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and they are liable to be acquitted. ;