Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1868 (RAJ)

Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-02

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court vide judgment/order dated 24.3.2017 for offences under Section 302 and 498 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Prosecution story, in brief is that the appellant was married to Maya Kanwar on 6.5.2011. Thereafter, Maya Kanwar was being harassed on account of demand of dowry by the appellant. On 27.9.2011, Maya Kanwar suffered burn injuries at the hands of the appellant. On the basis of the complaint moved by Man Singh, formal FIR No. 113 dated 23.9.2011 was registered at Police Station Nechhwa, Dist. Sikar for the offences u/S. 498-A and 304-B IPC. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. Charges were framed against the appellant by the trial court under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and in the alternative under Sec. 302 IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence prayed that his wife had committed suicide as he was a liquor addict. He was innocent and had never demanded dowry from his wife. 5. Appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 498-A and 302 IPC. Hence, present appeal by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. Statement of PW-8 Om Kanwar was recorded after 20/21 days of the occurrence. As per PW-8, appellant was seen coming out of the Kitchen with a can, whereas, during investigation, a plastic can containing kerosene oil was recovered from Kitchen itself. As per written complaint moved by Man Singh, nobody was present in the house at the time of incident. Man Singh has not been examined during trial. Hence, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of PW-8 as she has been introduced as a witness at a later stage. 7. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the prosecution have been successful in proving its case. 8. Admittedly, Om Kanwar sister of the deceased, is married to Mangu Singh elder brother of the appellant. 9. Admittedly, appellant had got married to Maya Kanwar on 6.5.2011. 7. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the prosecution have been successful in proving its case. 8. Admittedly, Om Kanwar sister of the deceased, is married to Mangu Singh elder brother of the appellant. 9. Admittedly, appellant had got married to Maya Kanwar on 6.5.2011. Maya Kanwar has died on account of burn injuries on 27.9.2011. 10. It has been pleaded by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that his wife had committed suicide as he was a liquor addict. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased has died an unnatural death. The question that requires consideration is as to whether it is a case of suicide as pleaded by the appellant or it is a case of murder. 11. Star witness of the prosecution is PW-8 Om Kanwar. PW-8 has deposed during trial that her marriage was performed with Mangu Singh on 6.5.2011 and her sister Maya Kanwar was married to appellant Krishan Kumar @ Krishan Singh on the same day. Both the sisters had started residing in their matrimonial home after marriage. Her husband had left for Hyderabad after four months of her marriage, whereas, appellant Krishan Kumar @ Krishan Singh was staying in the matrimonial home. Appellant used to quarrel with her sister and used to harass her on account of demand of dowry and used to beat her under the influence of liquor. She along with her mother-in-law had advised the appellant not to fight with his wife. However, appellant used to abuse and beat his wife and used to threaten her that she would be thrown out of her matrimonial home. On 26.9.2011, appellant was sleeping on the roof. Appellant fought with his wife during the night. She had gone to bring vegetables from 'Bara' in the morning and had told her sister that she should make tea for the appellant as soon as he gets up. When she returned home, she saw that the appellant was getting out of the Kitchen along with a can and her sister was in flames in the Kitchen. She raised alarm and lost her consciousness. Appellant had set her sister on fire on account of demand of dowry. Maya Kanwar had died on account of burn injuries. 12. When she returned home, she saw that the appellant was getting out of the Kitchen along with a can and her sister was in flames in the Kitchen. She raised alarm and lost her consciousness. Appellant had set her sister on fire on account of demand of dowry. Maya Kanwar had died on account of burn injuries. 12. Although, statement of PW-8 was recorded after 20/21 days of the incident but her presence at the spot is natural and cannot be doubted as the said witness was residing in the same house along with the appellant and her sister, being her matrimonial home. PW-8 had left with her parents after the incident. Statement of PW-8 being natural, inspires confidence. PW-8 has given explanation in her cross examination that she had remained unconscious for a long time after the incident. Apparently, there must have been pressure on PW-8 as her own marriage was also at stake on account of her deposition against the appellant, who is none other than younger brother of her husband. 13. Exhibit-P-15 is the postmortem examination report. A perusal of the same reveals that cause of death of the deceased was shock due to antemortem 99% burn injuries. It is further evident from the postmortem report that ligature mark, encircling the neck at the level of Thyroid of the deceased was also seen. As per Exhibit P-1 Panchayatnama, there was burnt cloth (rope like) around the neck of the deceased. 14. A combined reading of the statement of PW-8 and the postmortem examination report leads to inference that it cannot be said to be a case falling under Section 306 IPC as pleaded by the appellant, rather it is a clear case falling under Section 302 IPC. PW-8 Om Kanwar had seen the appellant leaving the spot and her sister was in flames in the Kitchen. 15. One plastic can was recovered from the Kitchen with a closed lid. The recovery of said plastic can from the Kitchen does not render the testimony of PW-8 doubtful with regard to the involvement of the appellant in the crime. 16. Wife of the appellant has died on account of burn injuries in her matrimonial home. Appellant was seen leaving the Kitchen by PW-8 Om Kanwar and at that time deceased was in flames. There was a mark encircling the neck at the level of Thyroid. 16. Wife of the appellant has died on account of burn injuries in her matrimonial home. Appellant was seen leaving the Kitchen by PW-8 Om Kanwar and at that time deceased was in flames. There was a mark encircling the neck at the level of Thyroid. All these facts lead to inference that the deceased had been set on fire by the appellant. It cannot be said to be a case of suicide. 17. Man Singh (witness) could not be examined during trial on account of his death as is evident from the interim order passed by the trial court dated 23.8.2012. Hence, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the non examination of witness Man Singh, during trial is without any force. 18. Thus, in the present case, prosecution has been successful in establishing its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 19. Thus, learned trial court has rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 498-A and 302 IPC. No ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed.