Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Instant appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated November 20, 1996 of the learned Special Judge (Sati Prevention) Rajasthan-cum, Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, whereby the accused appellant for short the accused) was convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and three years RI with fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further undergo six months R.I. with a direction that sentences shall run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows: (1) Accused was teacher and Anita (deceased) was his student. Their few tuition-sittings turned into deep intimacy. Resultantly on May 2. 1995 marriage of the two had taken place. Allegations of dowry death of Anita were levelled against the accused by her brother Rakesh Gupta in an FIR instituted with the Police Station. Vidhya Dhar Nagar on June 28, 1995. According to FIR the accused soon after marriage started demanding dowry and used to harass Anita. She was burnt under suspicious circumstances on June 26, 1995. Accused took her to private clinic and did not admit her to the Government Hospital despite suggestion of private doctor. Anita died on June 27,1995. Her parents were not timely informed by the accused. (2) Case under Sections 304- B and 498-A. IPC was registered against the accused and after his arrest investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge - sheet was filed. Thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City from which it was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Sati Prevention) Jaipur cumAdditional Sessions Judge. Jaipur City. Charges under Sections 304- Band 498-A, I.P.C. were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded. The accused produced three defence witnesses. Learned Trial Court after hearing arguments convicted the accused as mentioned hereinabove.
(3.) I have given my-anxious consideration to the rival contention8 and carefully scrutinised the record. Mr. A.K. Gupta learned Counsel appearing for the accused canvassed that conviction and sentences passed against the accused are patently illegal and perverse from the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witness and the learned Trial Court had committed error in not considering the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the accused is based on misreading of evidence. In the report Ex. P/3 facts in respect of demand of dowry and money had not been mentioned. Witness PW 2 Rakesh Gupta is the brother of the deceased. PW 3 Smt. Bhagwati Devi is the mother whereas PW 4 Shrikishan Gupta and PW 9 Sunita Gupta are father and sister. They are interested witnesses and there are material contradictions in their statements. PW 1 Dr. Man Singh Jam, recorded the dying declaration Ex. P/1 of the deceased. In the said statement deceased gave out that she sustained burn injuries on account of sudden flames from stove. PW 10, Kumari Brijesh Mathur had also supported the dying declaration and corroborate the evidence and she is an independent witness and she has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. It was under these circumstances it was proved that burn injuries sustained by the deceased were accidental and the accused attempted to save life of his wife and he also sustained burn injuries. PW 11 Lata is also an important witness being neighbour of the couple who also did not support the prosecution story regarding demand of dowry. Ex. D/69 is the injury report of the accused which shows that the accuser sustained burn injuries in the course of saving his wife. The learned Trial Court also did not consider this fact that marriage of accused with deceased Sunita was love marriage which had taken place with the approval of the families of the parties and question of demand of dowry does not arise at ali. The deceased was immediately taken to the nearby private clinic and if she was not shifted to Government Hospital no presumption could have been drawn against the bona fides of the accused. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the accused was rightly convicted.;