IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 312/2001. Reserved on : 1.3.2008 Decided on: 7.3. 2008. Ram Swaroop Mehra … … Appellant. Versus State of H.P. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 . yes For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The accused Ram Swaroop has filed this appeal against his conviction in Sessions Trial No. 18-S/7 of 1997 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, Circuit Court at Rohru whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.5.2001 has sentenced the accused under sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/- he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 months. The accused was also convicted and sentenced under section 324 of the Indian Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Penal Code for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The brief facts as gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that PW-1 Saroj Kumari was married with accused Ram Swaroop on 30.5.1993. She stayed in her matrimonial house with accused for one month. The accused brought her to Rohru where he was running a tea shop. The accused started beating and mal-treating PW-1 Saroj Kumari on account of bringing less dowry. On 28.2.1994 at 6.00 P.M. PW-1 Saroj Kumari was preparing meal in her house and in the meantime, accused Ram Swaroop being drunk came and rebuked his wife Saroj Kumari on the pretext that she has brought insufficient dowry. The accused started snatching pandal/locket and when she resisted the accused picked up a container of kerosene and poured it on her body. He also set her body ablaze with the help of burning fire wood. PW-1 raised alarm which attracted the attention of neigbourers who came there and rescued her. She was taken to Rohru Hospital in unconscious condition. PW-12 Madan Lal recorded the statement of PW-1 Saroj Kumari under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Ex.PW-1/A. The FIR was registered vide Ex.PW-9/A. PW-5 Dr. Prem Machhan examined PW-1 Saroj Kumari. PW-12 Madan Lal, Investigating Officer had also visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW-12/A. He also took into possession burnt pieces of clothes, gunny bags, burnt shirt, slawar, pullover, shawal etc. vide recovery memos Ex.PW-3/A, to Ex.PW-3/E, shirt Ex.P-2, Salwar Ex.P- 3, pullover Ex.P-5 and shawal Ex.P-6. The accused also made a disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-6/B on the basis of which one letter was recovered and taken in - 3 - possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/D. The report of Chemical Examiner is Ex.PW-12/C. The Investigating Officer also took into possession letter Ex.PW-1/B alleged to have been written by Saroj Kumari to her father Bal Krishan. The matter was investigated by the police and the challan was put up in the Court. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial court on 18.5.2001 as stated above. The appellant-accused is in appeal. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the trial court misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges. There are unexplained gaps in the prosecution story which is highly improbable. There is no legal evidence for proving the guilt of the accused. The Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment and had submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant. He has relied upon statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 and other material on record. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. PW-1 Saroj Kumari has given the detailed version in the manner in which she was put on fire by the accused. She has narrated that while she was making meal; the accused came to the house in drunken condition and started abusing her. He tried to snatch the locket/pandal from the neck of PW-1. When she resisted, he poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze with the help of burning fire wood. She was rescued by the neighbourers, who took her to the - 4 - Hospital. PW-5 Dr. Prem Machhan has medically examined PW-1. He had noticed the following injuries on the body of PW-1: “i) Face and neck:- Most part of the ear pinna with right side of neck, left side of the neck and anterior side of neck were also involved. The right side of the face below check bone was also involved. TRUNK: Anterior side of the chest wall with anterior side of abdominal wall. Limbs: Left Axilla, Anterio lateral and Anterio medial aspect ofright thigh in upper 3/4th posterior side was healthy. Left antero latera and anterior medial aspect of left side alongwith knee lateral. Whole of the back was spared. Percentage of the burn was around 36 to 40 per cent.” Besides issuing MLC Ex.PW-5/A, as discussed above, he also examined the accused. He had specifically suggested that there was a history of consumption of alcohol as far as accused Ram Swaroop was concerned. He has also categorically stated that there was smell of kerosene from the clothes of the victim. PW-2 Bal Krishan is father of PW-1. He has stated that when he reached the hospital, Rohru, he found his daughter in burnt condition. PW-3 Sohan Lal is the neighbourer, who reached the spot after hearing the cries of PW-1. He was accompanied by his mother. They tried to extinguish the fire. PW-4 Subhadra has stated that on 28.2.1994 she heard the cries of PW-1 from her room and on this she went there and found her clothes burnt. She also stated that she extinguished the fire. PW-6 is Hari Krishan. He has stated that on 18.2.1994 on hearing the cries of PW-1, he went to her quarter and found the accused beating her and that he saved her from his clutches. PW-7 Karam Chand has stated that respectable and elderly persons - 5 - had tried to patch up the matter between the accused and PW-1. He has further stated that the accused felt sorry in the meeting of elderly persons. PW-8 Ramel Chand is the brother of PW-1. He has stated that he reached Rohru with his mother and his sister was lying in the hospital in a burnt condition and at the relevant time, she was in unconscious condition. She narrated the incident to him about the pouring of kerosene on her by the accused next day. PW-9 HC Dula Ram, PW-10 Kamlesh Kumar and PW-11 Davinder Singh are formal witnesses. PW-12 is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed about the visit to spot, preparation of site plan, taking into possession of the clothes, including one canny of kerosene vide memo Ex.PW-3/C. He has also taken into possession burnt piece of wood. PW-13, Smt. Punita Bhardwaj, Addl. Superintendent of Police had recorded the statements of Bal Krishan, Rattan Chand, Jagat Ram, Mehtav Singh and Kashmir Singh under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is evident from the statements of PWs that the accused had poured kerosene on the person of PW-1 and thereafter set her ablaze. She was rescued by PW-3 and PW-4. She was rushed to the hospital where her statement was recorded by the police. PW-5 had categorically stated that he had noticed burn injuries and her clothes were also giving kerosene smell. The father and brother of PW-1 had visited the hospital and noticed the burn injuries on the person of PW- 1. It has also come on record that the relation between the parties were not cordial and accused used to give beatings to PW-1 on the pretext that inefficient dowry was brought by her. The trial court after discussing the entire evidence meticulously has rightly convicted and - 6 - sentenced the accused under section 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he is ordered to be taken into custody for under going the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial court. March 7, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) *Awasthi*. Judge