Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 464 (RAJ)

Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-10

MANAK MOHTA

body2006
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 29.07.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur convicting the appellant of offence under Section 304-B, IPC and sentencing to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment to further undergo one years simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 09.01.1998 at about 4:30 PM, PW. 4 Hasti Ram submitted a written first information report at Police Station, Nagaur stating inter alia that his sister Mst. Radha was married to appellant Babulal about 4 ½ years back. She stayed at the matrimonial home for about two years. During the period of her stay in the matrimonial home, she was being harassed by her in-laws and on one occasion the appellant Babulal on the pretext of taking her to village Alay, took her to Jodhpur. She was kept in a rented room, wherein appellants elder brother Mani Ram also used to stay. For not meeting the dowry demand she was thrown from the first floor of the house, on account of which she sustained injuries. She was being admitted in the hospital. On the date of incident her mother-in-law and the appellant husband were in town to attend a condolence function (Ganga Prasadi). In the afternoon at about 12:00 there was some oral altercation between his deceased sister Radha and her mother-in-law. She returned to the house closed herself in the room and committed suicide after burning herself . She died on the spot. On this information police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 304-B, IPC. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution adduced the oral and documentary evidence. The appellant in his statement under Section 313, CrPC denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. He pleaded innocence and stated that deceased Mst. Radha committed suicide at her parents house. He had filed a petition against her seeking a decree for divorce. As they had filed a petition for divorce his in-laws were not happy with him. On the death of his uncle Uda Ram his mother and others had gone to Nagaur on the condolence function known as Ganga Prasadi. He had also visited Nagaur. He had filed a petition against her seeking a decree for divorce. As they had filed a petition for divorce his in-laws were not happy with him. On the death of his uncle Uda Ram his mother and others had gone to Nagaur on the condolence function known as Ganga Prasadi. He had also visited Nagaur. A brother of the deceased namely Basti Ram killed his mother by stabbing. His brother lodged a first information report against Basti Ram on the same day prior to filing of the FIR in the instant case. As a counter blast a false case has been foisted against him. On the charge of the murder of his mother the deceased brother has already been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The trial Court having found that the deceased Mst. Radha was being subjected to the cruelty with the result that she committed suicide and died of unnatural death within a period of 7 years of her marriage. As such the appellant was found guilty of offence under Section 304-B, IPC the appellant has been sentenced in the manner stated above. 4. Assailing the conviction, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no definite evidence to show that deceased Mst. Radha was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before her death for, or in connection with a demand of dowry to attract offence under Section 304-B, IPC. The learned Counsel has brought out two significant aspect of the case. Firstly, that Mst. Radha was staying with her parents for last about 3 years. There was a divorce petition pending in the Court and as such there was no talking terms between the appellant and the deceased or with any of the family members. Secondly, on the same day at about 2:00 PM the brother of the deceased stabbed the mother of the appellant on account of which she died. A FIR of the incident was immediately lodged at the Police Station at 3:30 PM. Thereafter, a FIR of the instant case has been filed at about 4:45 PM. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant on the basis of the evidence brought on record. .5. A FIR of the incident was immediately lodged at the Police Station at 3:30 PM. Thereafter, a FIR of the instant case has been filed at about 4:45 PM. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant on the basis of the evidence brought on record. .5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Before we proceed to deal with the evidence, it would be convenient to acquaint with the essential ingredients of offence under Section 304-B, IPC, which can be stated as follows:- .(1) The death of the woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise under normal circumstances; .(2) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage; .(3) Soon before her death the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; .(4) Such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with demand of dowry. Thus, in case of offence under Section 304-B, IPC an exception is made by deeming provision as to nature of death as dowry death and that the husband or his relatives as the case may be is deemed to have caused such death, even the absence of evidence to prove these aspects, but in proving the existence of the ingredients of said offence by convincing evidence. 6. It is not in dispute that the deceased died of homicidal death. A Board consisting of PW. 14 Dr. Madanlal, PW. 15 Dr. Priti and PW. 16 Dr. Tapan Chakravarty conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Mst. Radha vide Exhibit P-9. The Board noticed the following injuries on the person of Mst. Radha:- .(1) Extensive burn over head and neck 9%. .(2) Extensive burn over chest 9%. .(3) Extensive burn over abdomen 9%. .(4) Burns over posterior surface of chest and back of body 16%. .(5) Extensive burn over upper limb 18%. .(6) Extensive burn over lower limb 30%. Total 91%. In the opinion of the Board the cause of death was due to shock after burns, which are ante mortem in nature. 7. In order to prove that Mst. Radha died within 7 years of the marriage, the prosecution examined PW. 5 Teja Ram the father of the deceased. .(6) Extensive burn over lower limb 30%. Total 91%. In the opinion of the Board the cause of death was due to shock after burns, which are ante mortem in nature. 7. In order to prove that Mst. Radha died within 7 years of the marriage, the prosecution examined PW. 5 Teja Ram the father of the deceased. The statement of the witness was recorded on 111.2000. He stated that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased had taken place about 10 years back. The incident took place on 09.01.1998. Thus, the trial Court calculated the marriage of year as 1992. On the said basis a conclusion was drawn that the incident took place within the 7 years of the marriage. There is also evidence in that regard of PW. 4 Hasti Ram, PW. 8 Shera Ram, PW. 9 Kana Ram the brothers of the deceased and PW. 6 Mst. Gora the mother. Thus, the finding in this regard does not call for any interference. 8. As regards the other ingredients to the effect that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of husband, the prosecution has examined the brothers of the deceased, PW. 4 Hasti Ram, PW. 8 Shera Ram, PW. 10 Kana Ram and the mother PW. 6 Gora. PW. 4 Hasti Ram stated that the deceased used to visit her in-laws house for initial two years. The appellant Babulal was an educated person. He used to ask Mst. Radha to bring money from her parents. He used to harass her for not bringing sufficient dowry. The statement of PW. 5 Teja Ram, PW. 8 Shera Ram, PW. 10 Kana Ram and PW. 6 Gora are almost on the same line. They have also stated that the deceased Radha had reported to them that the appellant used to beat her for not bringing money. 9. As regards the cruelty or harassment soon before the death the prosecution examined PW. 9 Jhumar Ram. He stated that on the date of incident he was sitting outside his house on the platform. The appellant Babulal was standing on the road. Seeing Mst. Radha he remarked (You are still living alive and showing your face). Hearing the said remark she on return from the house closed the room and committed suicide. Similar is the statement of PW. 11 Mohan Ram. The appellant Babulal was standing on the road. Seeing Mst. Radha he remarked (You are still living alive and showing your face). Hearing the said remark she on return from the house closed the room and committed suicide. Similar is the statement of PW. 11 Mohan Ram. Three is also evidence of PW. 12 Jagdish, PW. 13 Ganga Ram to the effect that when the deceased was burning, she was saying to the effect that she was finishing her life being tired of the behavior and conduct of her in-laws. 10. Having carefully considered the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, we are of the view that on face it does not appear to be credit worthy. In the first instance it is doubtful that on the road the appellant would have made a remark referred to above. Even if the said remark is accepted to be correct, cannot constitute of a nature leading to the cruelty or harassment compelling a person of taking the extreme step of committing suicide. There is no evidence worth the name that soon before her death, there was any cruelty or harassment to the deceased by the appellant. It has been admitted by PW . 5 Teja Ram, PW . 6 Gora and PW . 10 Kana Ram in their statements that the deceased was living with them i.e., at the parents house for the last more than 3 years. Thus, the question of harassment or torture at the hands of the appellant or his family members does not arise. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective, which has lead to serious miscarriage of justice. The prosecution has failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of offence under Section 304-B, IPC. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the Judgment of the trial Court dated 29.07.2003 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of offence under Section 304-B, IPC. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.