S. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated December 22, 2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, whereby the appellants, six in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:- Govind Narain & Hari Narain: U/s. 302 IPC : Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. U/s. 498a IPC: Both to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Smt. Ram Janki, Smt. Indra Devi, Smt. Santosh and Ganesh Narain : U/s. 498a IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on September 20, 2001 at 5. 35 PM informant Om Prakash submitted written report (Ex. P-65) at police station Ramganj Jaipur to the effect that his niece Vinita was married to Govind. Sometimes after the marriage her in-laws started pestering her for want of dowry. His niece, on telephone used to divulge to her parents that her in-laws maltreating her for want of dowry, she was not given proper food and constant threats were given to her. On September 18, 2001 the informant along with parents of Vinita went to her marital house, but her in-laws stated that they would send her on next day. On September 20, 2001, the informant by way of telephonic call received the information that Vinita had been burnt. The informant and others rushed to her marital house and thereafter to SMS hospital Jaipur where Vinita disclosed that she was burnt by her in-laws. In the course of treatment Vinita succumbed to burn injuries. On that report a case was registered under Sections 498a and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, 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) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Charges under sections 498a and 304b IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 24 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Two witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. We have heard the submissions advanced before us and scanned the material on record. A close look at the material on record reveals that informant Om Prakash, who had handed over the written report (Ex. P-65) at Police Station Ramganj, was not examined by the prosecution at the trial. It appears that Mahesh Kumar, Sub Inspector (Pw. 10) on receiving telephonic information from the police control room rushed to SMS Hospital. Mahesh Kumar deposed that after coming to know from police control room that Vinita received burn injuries and admitted to hospital, he reached to the hospital and on the instruction of SHO recorded her Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-5 ). He stated in his cross examination that on reaching the hospital he found Vinita talking to her father. Mahesh Kumar admitted that on the first page of Parcha Bayan he did not get the signatures of Vinita. Neither he recorded time on Parcha Bayan nor got signatures of doctor. He further stated that after about one hour of recording statement of Vinita he took Magistrate to the hospital and identified Vinita. Shri Neeraj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate (Pw. 20), who recorded second dying declaration of Vinita (Ex. P-67), stated that after Mahesh Kumar, police officer, identified Vinita, he recorded her statement. In his cross examination the witness admitted that Mahesh SI did not inform him that he had already recorded the statement of Vinita. Coming to the alleged dying declarations Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-67 of Vinita, we notice that she made allegations of dousing her with kerosene and set her ablaze on her husband Govind and father-in-law Hari Narain. She however stated before the Magistrate that she was sleeping with Govind at the time of incident and when she ran for her life, she was caught hold of by Govind and Hari Narain. Her Bhua-sas (sister of her father-in- law) came for rescue. Manbhar (Pw. 16) sister of Hari Narain deposed that although Hari Narain was her brother, she was not in talking terms with him and his family for the last 25 years. There was a street between her house and the house of Hari Narain. After his marriage Govind along with his wife Vinita resided in the room at first floor, which was just opposite to her residential room. On the date of incident around 3 AM she awoke as usual for going to `govind Dev temple'. On hearing the cries she went to the house of Govind and saw Vinita in flames and Govind was extinguishing the fire. She accompanied Vinita to the hospital. She further stated that Vinita used to talk with her from her window but she never complained about demand of dowry by her in-laws. In her cross examination she stated that when Thanedar (SHO) arrived Vinita told him that she herself got burnt. SHO then threatened to register a case against her and got her signatures on some papers. Manbhar stated thus:-
(3.) FKKUSNKJ dks fouhrk us ;g crk;k fd og [kqn ty xbz Fkha Fkkusnkjth us ;g dgk Fkk fd vxj rw ,sls cksysxh rks rsjs f[kykq eqdnek cuk nwaxk rw rks bu dkxtksa ij glrk{kj dja** Manbhar was not declared hostile by the prosecution. As per postmortem report (Ex. P-70) deceased sustained superficial to deep burn with blackening, peeling, blister formation, singing of hair, with smell like kerosene and red line of demarcation present and in the opinion of Dr. Ravindra Sachdeva (Pw. 21), who performed autopsy on the dead body, deceased died as a result of flame burns. Appellants Govind Narain and Hari Narain had also sustained burn injuries which were examined by Dr. Vinay Kumar (Pw. 13) vide injury reports (Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-10), which read thus:- Ex. P-9 (Govind Narain): Superficial to deep burn with blackening of skin, singing of hairs, scalp, eye brow and moustaches. Erythena Line of demarcation with blister formation, Peeling involving following parts of body:- 1. Left upper limb Anterior and posteriorly 2. Left side of chest Antero laterally. 3. Left side of thigh anteriorly. Ex. P-10 (Hari Narain): There is superficial to deep burn with blackening blister Formation, peeling of skin, singing of dorsum of left little finger, ring finger involving both hands with finger upto wrist. Apply coconut oil and white ointment with singing of frontal hair eye brow & eye lashes & moustaches. ;