Ram Kumar and another vs State of U.P.

K.N. Ojha and Shabihul Hasnain, JJ.—The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 26.5.2000 passed by learned Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 634 of 1996 whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 498A, 304B IPC & section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Ram Kumar has been sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment under section 498A and a fine of Rs. 5, 000/ has also been imposed. He has been awarded life imprisonment under section 304B IPC and two years Rigorous Imprisonment under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and a fine to Rs. 10, 000/ has also been imposed under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

Heard Smt. Masnisha Srivastava, Advocate for the appellants, learned AGA and have gone through the record.

According to the prosecution Sajeevan Lal P.W.1 had married his sister with appellant Ram Kumar resident of village Asherkheda, Hamlet of Intgaon, P.S. Kakori, District Lucknow. Harish Chand is elder brother of Ram Kumar. Both these persons seems to demand goldenchain one to in weight. Demand being not satisfied, they used to cause torture to her. They burnt her to death in the night of 1516 April, 1996. First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged by Sageevan Lal. on 16.4.1996 at about 8.05 A.M. at Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow, which is Ex. ka1 on which Crime No. 106/1996 was registered under section 498A and 304B IPC and, section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In the postmortem examination, P.W.3 Dr. B.K. Baryani found that Jagdei had died due to burn injuries. Ram Kumar was arrested from his house on 17.4.1996. His brother Harish Chand surrendered in the Court on 20.4.1996.

In postmortem examination the age of Smt. Jagdei was found to be 22 years. Superficial to deep burn injury all over the body except the soles was found. Skin was black and peeled off at different places. The cause of death was due to shock as a result of antimortem burn injuries.

Prosecution examined P.W.1 Sajeevan Lal brother of the deceased, P.W. 2 Smt. Sukhrana mother of the deceased, P.W.3 Dr. B.K. Baryani who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim, P.W.4 Prakash cousin brother of Smt. Jagdei, P.W.5 Const. Ram Pal who wrote first information report. Thus, three fact witnesses have been examined in support of the contention of the prosecution. They are P.W.1 Sajeevan Lal, P.W.2 Smt. Sukhrana and P.W. 4 Prakash. The witnesses have stated that whenever Smt. Jagdei went to the residence of her father she used to make complaint that demand for golden chain was made and it being not satisfied she was humiliated and tortured. The marriage of Smt. Jagdei with Ram Kumar had taken place only 5 years before. It is not denied that her death did take place at the residence of the appellants. Ram Kumar in statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he lived separate from his brother. His wife was warming milk all of a sudden fire caught hold on her. She suffered injuries and died. If fire would have taken place while Smt. Jagdei was cooking food burn injuries would have taken place on front side rather than on the back side of the body but in this case the whole body was burnt. It was the occurrence of day light and if the fire caught hold of Smt. Jagdei her family members would have run to her rescue. Besides it, no relation would like to detain his relation in jail unless he is really satisfied that daughter of his family was subjected to torture and unnatural death did take place inside the house of her husband and family members and this fact becomes confirmed from the statement which were made by a married girl to her father, mother and brother etc. In the instant case these witnesses have stated that whenever Smt. Jagdei went to the residence of her father, she always made complaint that demand for golden chain being not satisfied, she was subjected to cruelty and torture. P.W.1 Sajeevan Lal the brother of the victim has also stated that appellants were angry with Smt. Jagdei and, therefore, she lived for about four months at his residence. During this period appellants used to visit his residence and he had promised to give golden chain. Due to financial hardships he could not manage golden chain and, therefore, cruelly by the appellants against the victim continued. When witnesses P.W.1 Ram Sajeevan came to know that his sister Smt. Jagdei was burnt to death, he along with his mother went to the residence of the appellants and found that they were not present at their residence. If a member of a family dies all family members remain present there and they make arrangement for performing last ceremony, even friends and relations are called from different places but in the instant case when Smt. Jagdei suffered burn injuries, husband and, Jyestha'' who are appellants in this case instead of making arrangements for last ceremony of Smt. Jagdei they left the house. This shows their guilty conscience. The continuous living of the victim at her brother''s residence for about four months and the visits of the appellants to the residence of P.W. 1 Sajeevan Lal and making demand for golden chain shows that mental pressure was created on Smt. Jagdei by the appellants.

Sajeevan Lal is relation of the appellants. He had married his sister to Ram Kumar. He used to visit to see her. Appellants used to visit his residence and, therefore, he had personal knowledge as to whether Harish Chand used to live with Ram Kumar or not. Thus, from his statement it is clear that Harish Chand and Ram Kumar lived jointly and Harish Chand was also interested in getting golden chain.

P.W.2 Smt. Sukhrana stated that her husband had died before the marriage of Jagdei. Her son Sajeevan is a labourer. She was not in a position to give golden chain. She stated that when she along with her son etc. went there, appellants were not present at the house while other persons of the village were present there. She has stated that even till today Harish Chand is living jointly with Ram Kumar. Thus, from the submission of P.W.1 Sajeevan Lal and P.W.2 Smt. Sukhrana it is proved that both the appellants subjected the victim to cruelly because golden chain was not given by her family members and Harish Chand lived jointly with Ram Kumar and he also shared in exercise of cruelty and the unnatural death of Smt. Jagdei had taken place at her husband''s residence and it was the result of cruelly of the appellants. A perusal of postmortem examination report Ex.ka2 shows that Smt. Jagdei was a hale and hearty lady. Her death was not natural. Her death was unnatural front burn injuries. Thus, from evidence it is proved that death of Smt. Jagdei was unnatural and unnatural death was the result of constant exercise of cruelty.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has laid emphasis that both the accused persons are in jail since more than 7 years. They are poor persons. Smt. Jagdei has left two babies and they are the sufferer because Ram Kumar is in jail and their mother had died.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted Ram Kumar under sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act with three year''s rigorous imprisonment, life imprisonment and two years imprisonment and has directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. Section 304 (2) IPC provides punishment. It contemplates that whoever commits dowry death, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. In the instant case except burn injuries there are no external injuries which were caused by the appellants to Smt. Jagdei. She has left two children. The accused Ram Kumar is in jail since 1996 and Harish Chand is in jail since about 7 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Court finds it proper that Ram Kumar be awarded 10 years'' R.I. under section 304B IPC and Harish Chand be awarded 7 years'' R.I. under section 304B IPC. Thus, the order of conviction deserves to be confirmed but justice demands that the sentences be modified.

The appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction of Ram Kumar under sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Ram Kumar is confirmed. The finding of conviction against Harish Chand under sections 498A, 304B IPC also is confirmed but the sentence is modified. Ram Kumar is convicted with three years'' R.I. under section 498A IPC and 10 years'' R.I. under section 304B IPC. He is further convicted with two years R.I. under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

Harish Chand is awarded two years rigorous imprisonment under section 498A and seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 304B IPC and his both sentences shall run concurrently. Considering the long detention of the appellants in jail and the fact that Amicus Curiae was appointed for them and they were not in a position to engage the Counsel for them, it is observed that they are not required to pay fines.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow to send the copy to Superintendent Jail. If they have completed their sentence they be released from jail, if not wanted in any other case. They have to remain in jail till they serve out their full sentence as awarded by this Court.