SHARMA, J. - (1.) TALE of grief of Manju ended with her death. Her husband and two Devars (brothers of husband), appellants herein, were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui for having committed murder of Manju. Learned Judge vide judgment dated April 21, 2003 convicted and sentenced them as under:- Under Section 302 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 201 IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. FACTS:
(2.) A written report (Ex. P-7) was lodged at Police Station Bandikui at the instance of Ramesh Chand (Pw. 4) on August 25, 2001. It was inter alia stated in the report by him that his daughter Manju was married to Dinesh some ten years back. She used to be harassed and beaten in connection with the demand of dowry. The informant somehow arranged a buffalo for them but their greed did not come to halt. On August 24, 2001 around 3-4 PM Suresh and Dinesh came to the house of informant and asked him to accompany them to their house to pacify Manju who was quarreling constantly. The informant accompanied Suresh on his motor cycle to his house and found Manju dead. The informant saw injuries on her person. The informant was threatened by the inlaws of Manju and he was allowed to leave the house only after the funeral of deceased Manju. On that report a case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses got recorded, necessary memos were drawn, accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui. Charges under Sections 498a, 302 alternatively 302/34 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Three witnesses were examined in defence. The learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. SUBMISSIONS CANVASSED: It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the incident alleged to have been occurred on August 24, 2001 whereas the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased at 6 PM on August 25, 2001 and no reasonable explanation for delay was offered. It is further urged that Tara (Pw. 5) was not shown in the FIR as eye witness of the occurrence. According to learned counsel Tara was unreliable witness since she did not narrate the incident to her maternal aunt with whom she remained whole night in village Rehadia after the incident occurred. Dharmendra (Pw. 7) was the child witness and according to him deceased was beaten up by the appellant in the room, door of which was closed, whereas according to Tara door of the room was open. It is next contended that deceased committed suicide and the appellants were falsely implicated in the case. We have pondered over the submissions and scanned the material on record. The prosecution case is primarily founded on the testimony of Tara (Pw. 5) who is real sister of Manju and married to Subhash (real brother of Dinesh ). In her examination in chief Tara stated as under:- *** (Manju was made to lie down by Suresh, Dinesh and Vijendra and a tablet of white colour was put in her mouth and after closing her nose and pouring water in the mouth, she was forced to gulp the tablet. I reside in the same house in which accused reside. I was at a distance and raised shouts.) But in the cross examination she improved her version and stated thus:- *** (It was not Dinesh but Vijendra who put the tablet in Manju's mouth. . . On the date of incident I had come to Radia, at the house of my maternal uncle. . . I remained whole night with my maternal aunt but, I did not tell her about the incident occurred with Manju) Shabbir Ahmad Khan IO (Pw. 6) while inspecting place of occurrence found a packet of Almunium Phosphate Salphose lying there. It was seized and sealed vide seizure memo (Ex. P-5) and sent to FSL. FACTUAL SITUATION:
(3.) FACTUAL situation emerges from material on record may be summarised thus:- (i) As per FIR Dinesh and Suresh came to the father of Manju to apprise him that Manju was constantly quarreling. (ii) Informant Ramesh Chand (father of Manju) accompanied Dinesh and Suresh to their house and found Manju dead. Ramesh Chand participated in funeral. (iii) Investigating Officer found packet of Aluminium Phosphate Salphose lying at the place of incident. (iv) Tara (Pw. 5), real sister of Manju, deposed that Dinesh, Suresh and Vijendra forcibly administered poison to Manju. Having closely scrutinised the testimony of Tara we find that it is riddled with numerous incongruencies and embellishments which render the same to be highly dubious and unworthy of credence. Tara, by no standards of appreciation of evidence can be placed in the category of a wholly reliable witness. We find it difficult to believe that in the presence of Tara, the appellants would have used force and put tablet of poison into the mouth of Manju. Conduct of Tara in not telling the incident to her maternal aunt creates doubt about truthfulness of her testimony. Although the prosecution failed to prove that death of Manju was homicidal yet there is overwhelming evidence to establish that Manju's life was made intolerable by appellant Dinesh by demanding from her money and also beating her constantly. The willful conduct of appellant Dinesh in harassing Manju was so cruel that she was driven to commit suicide by consuming poison and the offence of abetment of committing suicide, punishable under Section 306 IPC is exfacie made out against appellant Dinesh. The prosecution however failed to prove charge under Section 302 IPC against appellants Suresh and Vijendra. SECTION 201 IPC: ;