Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 714 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Krishnalal

2001-04-25

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2001
Honble GARG, J.–This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 12.12.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 36/89 by which he acquitted the accused respondents of the charges for the offence under sections 306 and 304B IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (2). It arises in the following circumstances:- On 23.4.1998 at about 2.05 PM, the accused respondent No. 1 Krishnalal lodged on oral report Ex.P/12 before PW 11 Jagmalram, SHO, Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar stating inter- alia that he was married with Mst. Raju aged about 20 years, daughter of Bachnaram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in the year 1984 and his father had already died before 15 years back and since then he was living with his mother Prem Kanwar (accused respondent No. 2) and he was not in service and thus, he was unemployed and on that day, he went out from this house for some work and when the returned back at about 1.30 PM, he found crowd at his house and also found fire in his house and people were extinguishing the fire and he cam to know that his wife, deceased was burnt and died and, therefore, he had come to inform the police. On this report, police registered the FIR No. 7/88 and started investigation. During investigation, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and the post mortem report is Ex.P/3, where the doctors opined that cause of the death of the deceased was Asphyxia due to ante-mortem burns. When the investigation in FIR No. 7/88 was going on, in the meanwhile, PW1 Bachnaram, father of the deceased, lodged a written report Ex.P/1 on 26.4.1988 before Police Station Purani Abadi,Sri Ganganagar stating inter-alia that all the accused respondents have murdered his daughter (deceased) by burning her and he had also come to know that a report was also lodged on behalf of the accused respondents stating therein that deceased had committed suicide, but the fact was that accused respondents have killed her. It was further stated in the report that all the accused respondents used to harass and torture her as she was illiterate lady and accused respondent No.1 Krishnalal (husband of the deceased) was an educated person and accused respondents used to say that in dowry, nothing was given to them and thus, they used to torture, harass and humiliate her. It was further stated in the report that action be taken against the accused respondents for killing her daughter (deceased) by burning. On this report, police chalked out FIR Ex.P/2 for the offence u/Sec. 306, 304B IPC and started investigation. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence under Section 306, 304B IPC in the Court of Magistrate holding inter-alia that it was a case of dowry death. Therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 22.8.1988, the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar framed charges against the accused respondents for the offence under sections 306 and 304B IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents. The accused respondents denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Therefore, statements of the accused respondents u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused respondents. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar through his judgment and order dated 12.12.1989 acquitted the accused respondents of all the charges framed against them holding inter-alia:- 1. That it is a case of suicide by the deceased. 2. That death of the deceased was caused due to burning and has taken place within seven years of the marriage. 3. That PW 1 Bachnaram, father of the deceased, took the deceased to his house at the time of marriage of his son and kept the deceased in his house for 12 months and during that period, nobody came from her in-laws house to take her back. 4. 3. That PW 1 Bachnaram, father of the deceased, took the deceased to his house at the time of marriage of his son and kept the deceased in his house for 12 months and during that period, nobody came from her in-laws house to take her back. 4. That at the time of marriage of son of PW 4 Ratiram, PW 1 Bachnaram and PW 4 Ratiram went to the house of her in-laws to take deceased, where accused respondent No.3 Prem Kanwar (Mother- in-law of the deceased) expressed her displeasure and told that deceased be taken away by them and her clothes were through away. 5. That above facts were admitted by the learned Sessions Judge at pages 19 and 20 of his impugned judgment. However, he observed that this statement of accused respondent NO. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased) is to some extent objectionable, but no case of dowry death or abatement of suicide is made from this part of her statement. 6. That prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offence u/Sec. 306 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 12.12.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. (3). 6. That prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offence u/Sec. 306 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 12.12.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. (3). In this appeal, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan has submitted that impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is self-contradictory on the point that when he has come to the conclusion at page 19 and 20 of his impugned judgment that PW1 Bachnaram, father of the deceased, took her to his house at the time of marriage of his son and he kept deceased in this house for 12 months and during that period, nobody came from her in-laws house to take her back and when PW 1 Bachnaram and PW 4 Ratiram went to her in-laws house to take deceased for attending marriage of son of PW4 Ratiram, at that time, accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) expressed her displeasure and told that deceased be taken away by them and her clothes were through away, as case of dowry death is clearly made out against the accused respondents and thus, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are not based on proper appreciation of evidence, but are self-contradictory and hence, should be set aside. (4). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents supported the impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. (5). I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the learned counsel for the accused respondents and perused the record of the case. (6). Before proceeding further, relationship of the accused respondent with the deceased must be mentioned here:- Name of accused appellants Relationship with the deceased 1. Krishnalal Husband 2. Puran Chand Uncle-in-law 3. Prem Kanwar Mother-in-law (7). In Shanti vs. State of Haryana (1), the Honble Supreme Court has an occasion to explain the ingredients of Sec. 304B IPC. His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said ``A careful analysis of Sec. 304B IPC shows that this section has the following essentials:- 1. Krishnalal Husband 2. Puran Chand Uncle-in-law 3. Prem Kanwar Mother-in-law (7). In Shanti vs. State of Haryana (1), the Honble Supreme Court has an occasion to explain the ingredients of Sec. 304B IPC. His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said ``A careful analysis of Sec. 304B IPC shows that this section has the following essentials:- 1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. 2. such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. 3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. (8). What Sec. 304B IPC requires is that death of the woman should be unnatural. In Shanti vs. State of Haryana (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has clearly held that for applicability of Sec. 304 B IPC question whether unnatural death of a woman was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant. (9). Sec. 304 B IPC raises a presumption of culpability against the husband or relative hitherto unknown to our jurisprudence. (10). The prosecution must prove with some positive evidence that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty of harassment. (11). In the case of dowry death and suicide, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence, that could be direct or indirect. In this respect, conduct of the husband and other relatives also plays a very vital role in coming to the conclusion of the guilt. In this respect, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Guru Bachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh (2), may be seen. (12). Motive for a murder may or may not be. But in dowry deaths, it is inherent. And hence, what is required of the court to examine is as to who translate it into action as motive for it is not individual, but of family. (See Ashok Kumar vs. State of Raj. (3)). (13). Before proceeding further, medical evidence of this case should be discussed first. (14). The medical evidence is found in the statement of PW6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta. (See Ashok Kumar vs. State of Raj. (3)). (13). Before proceeding further, medical evidence of this case should be discussed first. (14). The medical evidence is found in the statement of PW6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta. He states that for conducting the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, a Medical Board and constituted on 25.4.1998 and apart from him, Dr. O.P. Sharma and Dr. Avinash Sardana were members of the Board. He further states that dead body of the deceased was received on 23.4.1988 at about 8.00 PM and dead body of the deceased was kept on ice and post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted on 25.4.1988 and on examination, following things were found:- 1. That whole body was burnt. 2. That hairs of head of the deceased were totally burned. 4. That there were nine bangles and one kada in the Lt. forearm of the deceased. 5. That bones of skull of the deceased were broken. The doctors opined that cause of death of the deceased was Asphyxia due to ante mortem burns. He has proved the post mortem report Ex.P/3. (15). Thus, from the post mortem report ex.P/3 and by the statement of PW6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, the fact that deceased died because of burns is very well established and at the time of post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, her skull bones were found broken. (16). Hence, death of the deceased can be assigned as unnatural one. (17). It may be stated here that in the case of burning, fracture of skull is not necessary, but in the present case, skull bones of the deceased were found broken, therefore, the possibility that she would have been killed before death, cannot be ruled out. (18). From this point of view, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that it was a case of suicide cannot be accepted and as already held above, the possibility that before burning, deceased would have been murdered by the accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar, as it would be clear from later discussion, cannot be ruled out, but for the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC, it is immaterial whether death is suicidal or homicidal. Therefore, no further discussion on this point is required, as from both point of view, death of he deceased would be judged as unnatural one. (19). Therefore, no further discussion on this point is required, as from both point of view, death of he deceased would be judged as unnatural one. (19). The point that death of the deceased took place within seven years of her marriage is not in dispute. (20). Hence, points no.1 and 2 are well proved by the prosecution so far as the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC is concerned. (21). Now the oral evidence has to be discussed with respect to the charges levelled against the accused respondents. The case of prosecution against accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased). (22). Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that the learned Sessions Judge at pages 19 and 20 of his impugned judgment has admitted two points, which have been discussed earlier in para 2 at pages 4 and 5 of this judgment. He has further admitted at page 17 of his impugned judgment that the statement of Dhanni Devi, PW5, who is Bua of deceased, is reliable to the extent that deceased before one month of her death told PW5 Dhanni Devi that her in-laws used to harass and torture her and especially mother-in-law Prem kanwar, accused respondent No. 3 used to torture and harass her more. However, he observed that from this statement, no case of dowry demand can be gathered. (23). In the present case, first report was lodged on 23.4.1988 by accused respondent No. 1 Krishnalal (husband of the deceased) stating inter-alia that his wife (deceased) had died because of burns. (24). PW1 Bachnaram, who is father of the deceased, also lodged report Ex.P/1 on 26.4.1988, in which allegations of dowry demand were made against the accused respondents. (25). PW 1 Bachnaram in his examination in chief has stated:- 1. That since his son-in-law Krishnalal (accused respondent no.1) was a graduate and while her daughter (deceased) was illiterate lady, therefore, accused respondents used to say that sufficient dowry was not given at the time of marriage. 2. That at the time of marriage of his sons, accused respondents did not attend the marriage of his sons saying that he had no capacity to give some thing to them. 3. That whenever deceased used to come to his house, she used to tell him that she was being harassed and tortured by the accused respondents for not bringing sufficient dowry. 4. 3. That whenever deceased used to come to his house, she used to tell him that she was being harassed and tortured by the accused respondents for not bringing sufficient dowry. 4. That for 12 months continuously, deceased remained in his house, but nobody from her in-laws house came to take her back. 5. That wife of PW 4 Ratiram is his dharam sister and he took deceased to her house and, thereafter, after 15 days from the house of PW 4 Ratiram, deceased was again sent to her in- laws house. 6. That as there was marriage of son of PW 4 Ratiram, therefore, he and PW 4 Ratiram went to her in-laws house to take deceased and at that time, accused respondent No.2 Puran Chand (uncle-in-law of deceased) and accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased) told them that deceased be taken away and goods given in dowry be also taken back and upon this, deceased told that she would not like to attend the marriage in these circumstances and when they were coming back, neighbourer of the accused respondents Mst. Kastoori intervened in the matter and on her intervention, deceased was allowed to go with PW 1 Bachnaram and PW4 Ratiram and deceased was brought to village killawali and, thereafter, after 15 days, PW2 Hanuman, son of PW 1 Bachnaram, took deceased to her in-law house. 7. That after 20 days or a month, when last time the deceased was left in her in-laws house, PW3 Sugnaram came to him in a Jeep and told that deceased had been killed by burns. Upon this, he and PW 2 Hanuman went to Ganganagar, where they found that dead body of the deceased was lying in the hospital and, thereafter, dead body of the deceased was handed over to them and then, her dead body was cremated and thereafter, the report was lodged. In cross examination, he admits the following facts:- 1. That PW 4 Ratiram and Motiram are the real brothers. 2. That Motiram met him in the morning on 26.4.1988 and, therefore, report Ex.P/1 was lodged. (26). PW 2 Hanuman is another witness, who is brother of the deceased. In cross examination, he admits the following facts:- 1. That PW 4 Ratiram and Motiram are the real brothers. 2. That Motiram met him in the morning on 26.4.1988 and, therefore, report Ex.P/1 was lodged. (26). PW 2 Hanuman is another witness, who is brother of the deceased. He has stated that for the first time after the marriage of deceased when he went to her in-laws house to take deceased back, at that time, Prem Kanwar, accused respondent No. 3 (mother-in-law of deceased) told him that saris and other goods given to her in dowry were not sufficient goods and she threw them and she also told that deceased be taken back and, thereafter, he took deceased with him. He further states that after the marriage of son of PW4 Ratiram, when he went to leave deceased in her in-laws house, at that time, accused respondents told him why he has brought deceased to their house and she be taken back, but he came back after leaving the deceased in her in-laws house. (27). PW 3 Sugnaram is the uncle of deceased. He states that his mother also used to live with him and deceased told his mother (grand-mother of deceased) that her mother-in-law Prem Kanwar (accused respondent No. 3) used to beat, torture and harass her and such harassment was for demand of dowry. This witness was cross examined, but the statement which he has given above was not at all shattered and no question was asked on this point. (28). Another witness is PW 4 Ratiram. He has supported the statement of PW 1 Bachnaram on the point that when he and PW 1 Bachnaram went to take deceased from her in-laws house, at that time, mother-in-law of deceased Prem Kanwar (accused respondent No.3) threw clothes and told that both goods as well as deceased by taken back and upon this, deceased told that she would not like to go in these circumstances, but on the intervention of neighbourer, deceased was allowed to go with them. (29). The Next witness is PW5 Dhanni Devi, who is Bua of deceased. She states that before one months of the death of the deceased, deceased came to her house and told her that accused respondents used to harass and torture her and especially, mother-in-law Prem Kanwar, accused respondent No. 3 used to torture and harass her more. (29). The Next witness is PW5 Dhanni Devi, who is Bua of deceased. She states that before one months of the death of the deceased, deceased came to her house and told her that accused respondents used to harass and torture her and especially, mother-in-law Prem Kanwar, accused respondent No. 3 used to torture and harass her more. The statement of PW 5 Dhanni Devi also corroborates the statements of other witnesses on the point that deceased was being harassed and tortured by accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) and such harassment was for or in connection with demand for dowry. (30). PW7 Jasvindra Singh is independent witnesses, who is neighbourer of the accused respondents. He states that when he saw that smoke was coming out from in-laws house of deceased, he went there and in the Chowk he found that accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) and other ladies of Mohallah were there and Ramdev was also standing there and he told Ramdev for extinguishing the fire, upon this, accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) told that ``deceased has been burnt and let her burn and it is no use extinguishing the fire. He has further stated that thereafter, accused respondent No. 1 Krishnalal came and then he went to Police Station for lodging the report. (31). This witness was cross examined, but his statement also corroborates the statements of other witnesses on the point that main person behind demand of dowry was accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased), as the version which she has uttered before this witness goes to show that she has no sympathy with deceased and the remarks given by her also lead to only one conclusion that death of the deceased had taken place because of demand of dowry by accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased). (32). Thus, from the statements of PW1 Bachnaram, PW 2 Hanuman, PW 3 Sugnaram, PW 4 Ratiram, PW 5 Dhanni Devi and PW 7 Jasvindra Singh, it clearly appears that there is overwhelming evidence on the point that deceased was being tortured and harassed by her mother-in-law Prem kanwar (accused respondent No. 3) and such harassment was for or in connection with demand for dowry. (33). (33). Therefore, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that though he has admitted to some extent that there are evidence which goes against the accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased). but he has come to the conclusion that such evidence is not sufficient to connect her with the demand of dowry, cannot be sustained and the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge so far as they relate to this lady are liable to be set aside, as per discussion made above and later on. Appeal against acquittal, principles to regulate hearing by High Court. (34). The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial court have been set out in innumerable case of Honble Supreme Court and in Ajit Savant Majagavi vs. State of Karnataka (4), the following principles have been reiterated:- 1. In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. 2. The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. 3. Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order o acquittal was based and to record its won reasons for not accepting those grounds not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. 4. In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court. 5. If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. 6. 5. If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. 6. The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court, especially in the witness box. 7. The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. (35). In this respect, the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab (5), Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana (6), Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai vs. State of Gujarat (7), Hari Chand vs. State of Delhi (8), Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana (9), and Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (10) may be seen. (36). In Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- ``While caution is the watchword, in appeal against acquittal as the trial Judge has occasion to watch demeanour of witnesses interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived at. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless. In the present case the order of the trial court is vitiate as part from deciding the case of irrelevant consideration that most serious error of which he was guilty and which rendered the order infirm which could be set aside by the High Court was that he misread the evidence and indulged in conjectural inference and surmises. (37). Keeping in mind the above principles, the findings, which have been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge so far as they relate to accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of deceased), are going to be reversed and set aside because the learned Sessions Judge has himself come to the conclusion learned Sessions Judge has himself come to the conclusion that there was evidence against this lady, but did not find positive evidence. However, in my opinion, looking to the entire evidence available on record, there is positive evidence, which shows that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by accused respondent No.3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of deceased) and such cruelty and harassment was for or in connection with demand for dowry. (38). As already stated above, in the case of dowry death and suicide, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inference can be drawn on the basis of such evidence, that could be direct or indirect. In this respect, the conduct of accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of deceased) plays a very vital role in coming to the conclusion of guilt. In the present case, instances and conduct as discussed above are very much material on the point that deceased was being harassed and tortured by accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of deceased) and such harassment was for or in connection with demand for dowry. (39). There is one more aspect which goes against the accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) that at the time when burning took place in the house of accused respondent, this lady accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) was found also and other two accused respondents were not in that house and thee is no evidence which shows that she made by attempt to save the deceased from burn injuries, rather from the words spoken by this lady, which have already been stated above, it appears that she was a party in all respects not only with the demand of dowry, but also in the death of deceased. As stated earlier, deceased was having fractures on her head, therefore, possibility that deceased was murdered by this accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of deceased) cannot be ruled out. This aspect also goes against this lady. (40). In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Bachnaram, PW 2 Hanuman, PW 3 Sugnaram, PW4 Ratiram and PW 5 Dhanni Devi clearly testified to the greedy and lusty nature of the accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of the deceased) in that she persistently taunted the deceased and tortured her for not having brought sufficient dowry from her father. It is also in evidence that she also taunted for that to PW 1 Bachnaram, PW 2 Hanuman and PW 4 Ratiram. (41). Thus, looking to the entire evidence on record, It can easily be said that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of the deceased) of the charges framed against her are not be based on correct appreciation of evidence and the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence and indulged in conjectural inferences and surmises. (42). Before parting with the case of this lady accused respondent NO. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of the deceased), some thing should be said about the principle of benefit of doubt and conscience of the Court. Principle of benefit of doubt and conscience of the Court (43). The Honble Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh (11), Honble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji (as he then was) has observed that the conscience of the Court can never be bound by any rule but that is coming itself dictated the consciousness and prudent exercise of the judgment. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts of lingering suspicious and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish and innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. (44). The above principle has been further approved by the Honble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr. (12). (45). Keeping the above principles in mind, in the present case, it does not appeal to the conscience of this Court that this lady accused respondent No.3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of the deceased) has not committed the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC and, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where benefit of doubt should be given to this lady accused respondent No.3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of the deceased). (46). (46). So far as other two accused respondents No. 1 Krishnalal (husband of the deceased) and No. 2 Puran Chand (uncle in-law of deceased) are concerned, there case stand on different footing and the rule of benefit of doubt would be applicable in their cases, as it would be discussed later on. (47). For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts the charge for the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC against accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) and thus, she is liable to be convicted for the offence u/Sc. 304B IPC and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting this lady of the said charge are liable to be set aside and this State appeal against acquittal of this lady deserves to be allowed. (48). Since accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) has been convicted for the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC, therefore, no separate order convicting her for the offence u/Sec. 306 IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has to be passed. The cased of accused respondents No. 1 Krishnalal (husband of the deceased) and No. 2 Puran Chand (uncle-in-law of deceased). (49). From the discussion made above, it clearly appears that the legal evidence, which is found in the statements of PW 1 Bachnaram, PW 2 Hanuman, PW3 Sugnaram, PW 4 Ratiram, PW5 Dhanni Devi and PW 7 jasvindra Singh, is not sufficient to connect these accused respondents No. 1 Krishnalal (husband of the deceased) and No. 2 Puran Chand (uncle-in-law of deceased) with the crime for the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC and thus, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting them of the charges u/Sec. 304B IPC and others are liable to be confirmed and the State appeal against them is liable to be dismissed. On point of sentence (50). The accused respondent No.3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) is going to be convicted for the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC. (51). Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, for the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC, if accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of deceased) is sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months RI, it would meet the ends of justice. In the result:- 1. In the result:- 1. The State appeal against the accused respondents No. 1 Krishnalal (husband of deceased and No. 2 Puran Chand (under-in- law of deceased) is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order dated 12.12.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. 2. The State appeal against accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother in law of deceased) is allowed and the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.12.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar so far as they relate to accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar, are set aside and the accused respondent NO. 3 Prem Kanwar is convicted for the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC and for the offence u/Sec. 304B IPC, she is sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months RI. As per the provisions of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C., the period of detention, if any, undergone by her during the investigation or trial shall be set off from seven years RI. Since accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar is on bail, she shall surrender before the trial court immediately and in case she does not surrender before the trial court, the trial court shall take necessary steps for arresting this lady and sending her to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence.