Kanti Lal vs State Of Rajasthan

3] The incident, which led to the trial of the accused, occurred on 07.08.1992 at about 9.00 a.m. at Village-Silason, District-Pali. Parasmal [PW-5] - father of Smt. Laxmi lodged written report [Ex.P-7] to Shaitan Singh [PW-12] - Station House Officer, Police Station - Raniwada, District - Pali alleging inter alia that about three years prior to the day of incident, his daughter Smt. Laxmi aged about 22 years was married to Arvind Kumar [A-1] - son of Sanwal Chand [A-2], resident of Village Silason. He averred that as per the custom of the area, he had given 20 tolas of gold and other valuable articles to his daughter at the time of her marriage. He alleged that after the marriage, his daughter had lived a happy and peaceful life in her parents-in-law's house for about one year, but soon thereafter whenever his daughter used to come to his house or whenever he paid visits to the house of her parents-in-laws, his daughter had made repeated complaints to him in regard to ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her at the hands of the accused for not bringing sufficient 4 dowry. He alleged that about two years after her marriage Smt. Laxmi became pregnant and as per the custom of the area, she came to her parents' house for delivery of the first child and at that point of time his son-in-law (A-1) and his son-in-law's elder brother [A-3] had demanded loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from him for starting some business, which amount he had paid to them. Smt. Laxmi was blessed with a male child. After the delivery of a child, Smt. Laxmi stayed in his house for a period of about 3-4 months and thereafter she along with her male child, went back to her parents-in-laws' house.

4] The complainant further alleged that he had gone to the house of the parents-in-laws of his daughter to find out their welfare, but at that point of time the accused told him that the loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- borrowed by A-1 and A-3 from him will be treated as dowry amount. It was alleged that Smt. Laxmi came to his house about two months prior to her death. Bhanwar Lal (A-4), elder brother of A-1, came to his house and asked him to send his daughter to her parents-in-laws' house, but because of darkness in the evening, he declined to 5 send her with an infant child with A-4. He alleged that on the same night at about 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. three accused, namely A-3, A-4 and A-7, came to his house and banged the door of his house. On hearing the repeated sound of banging of the door, he and his wife Bhanvri [PW-6] immediately opened the door of the house and saw A-3, A-4 and A-7 standing outside the house. They without any reason started quarelling with him and his wife and told them that the money advanced by him to A-1 and A-3 shall be treated as amount of dowry. On hearing the shouting voices of A-3, A-4 and A-7 at the house of the complainant, one Dayalal Tagir Chand (PW-3), Narayan Chand (PW-7) and some more neighbours gathered there and on their intervention A-3, A-4 and A-7 had gone back to their house.

5] It was alleged that about 10 days prior to the date of incident, complainant along with Mahender Singh his brother- in-law and Pratap [PW-10], an acquaintance of the complainant, went to the house of the parents-in-laws of his daughter. He went inside the house to meet his daughter, whereas Mahender Singh and PW-10 remained sitting 6 outside. His daughter had disclosed to him that all the accused had maltreated and harassed her for not bringing adequate dowry. He, in the presence of Mahender Singh and PW-4, requested the accused persons that they unnecessarily should not harass and maltreat his daughter but they paid no heed to his request. It was also stated that in the early morning of the day of incident, one Mishrimal Soni and two Rajputs came to his house and revealed that Smt. Laxmi had been admitted to Raniwada Hospital as she was suffering from stomach pain. He along with his wife PW-6 went to the hospital where they saw their daughter lying on the bed with burn wounds on her body. He advised his wife to stay back by the side of his daughter and himself went to his village for taking the help of his brothers and relatives. He took his brother Angraj and Jayantilal and some more people of the village to the hospital, where they were informed that the victim was being taken to Thonera for further treatment. His wife had also gone with her daughter. After some time, a jeep came there, carrying the dead body of Smt. Laxmi. He was told that Smt. Laxmi had died on the way. On these premises, 7 he lodged a complaint [Ext. P7] before Shaitan Singh (PW-12) Station House Officer, Police Station Raniwada at about 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. on the same day. On the basis of the complaint (Ex. P7), First Information Report bearing Case No. 126/92 [Ex. P8] came to be registered at Police Station Raniwada against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC.

7] PW Shaitan Singh, before the death of Smt. Laxmi, went to Primary Health Centre, Raniwada, where she was admitted in injured condition. He requested PW Dr. Vasudev about the condition of Smt. Laxmi. Dr. Vasudev opined that injured 8 Smt. Laxmi was in a fit state of mind to make statement. PW Shaitan Singh called Arvind Kumar Sengwa [DW-2] - Naib Tehsildar to the hospital, who recorded dying declaration of Smt. Laxmi [Ext.D/4] in the presence of Dr. Vasudev. On receipt of the information about the admission of injured Smt. Laxmi in hospital, Raniwada, Raghubir Singh [PW-13] C.O., Bhinmal, rushed to the hospital and found Smt. Laxmi dead on account of 90 per cent burn injuries. PW Shaitan Singh prepared panchnama [Ext.P-2] under the instructions and supervision of PW-13. PW-13 before handing over the dead body to PW-5 - father of the deceased got her dead body examined from the Medical Board. He inspected the spot of the incident and prepared Site Map [Ext. P-12] in the presence of Jalam Singh [PW-1], Shaitan Singh [PW-2] and Ook Singh [PW-4]. On spot inspection, some burnt pieces of the bangles, ash, match-box containing burnt and unburnt sticks, some burnt pieces of the skin attached with clothes and one `bhabka' [a kerosene burning lamp which is being used by a goldsmith for placing joints in making of gold ornaments] were collected from the spot. The Investigating Officer seized all 9 those articles and sealed them in a parcel which was deposited with the In-charge of the Police Station. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He later on arrested A-1, A-3 and A-6. PW-13 conducted the investigation partly and thereafter as per the order of the D.I.G. Range, Jodhpur, PW-13 on 23.09.1992 handed over the case file for further investigation to Mahender Kumar Govil [PW-14] - Additional Superintendent of Police, Bikaner. PW-14 recorded the statements of the material witnesses. After the completion of the investigation of the case, Station House Officer prepared chargesheet against accused persons and filed the same in the court of Judicial Magistrate under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Judge for trial.

8] The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, charged the accused for offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 15 witnesses. The accused persons in the statements recorded under Section 313 of the 10 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short "Cr.P.C."] denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. Smt. Bagtu [A-7] pleaded that on the day of the incident she was ill. The accused examined Doongarmal [DW-1] and Arvind Kumar Sengwa [DW-2] - Naib Tehsildar, Raniwada, Yashpal [DW-3] and Bhanwar Lal [A-4] in their defence.

11] The High Court dismissed the appeal of A-1 and A-3, whereas the appeal of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 was allowed and their conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, has been set aside. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by Arvind Kumar Sengwa [DW- 2] - Naib Tehsildar has been dismissed. The order of the High Court reads as under:

41] In the result, for the above-stated reasons, there is no merit in these appeals and these are, accordingly, dismissed. Both the appellants are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.