Bimla Devi PW.7 , mother of the deceased stated in her statement that the accused Girdhari Lal and Babita came to their village Chhavsari one month prior to the incident and stayed there for one hour.
This statement clearly indicates that Babita was being subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before the death.
Her in laws were harassing Babita in companynection with demand for dowry from the initial days of her marriage.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Girdhari Lal, modified the sentence and companyvicted him under Section 306 IPC instead of 304B IPC.
For the said offence, the Division Bench sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/ , in default he has to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.
The burden to prove innocence lies on the respondent after the prosecution has proved that the deceased died under the unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage.
On the said companyplaint a case under Section 304B and 498A IPC was registered and investigation was companymenced.
Since the respondent Girdhari Lal had already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than six years, the High Court directed to release him forthwith, if number required to be detained in any other case.
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that The informant Jugal Kishore PW.1 father of the deceased Babita in his written companyplaint on 11th August, 1998 informed that his daughter Babita since deceased was married to respondent Girdhari Lal four years back.
Jugal Kishore was number present at the house at that time and Babita told her mother to send her father to her in laws because Girdhari Lal used to harass her.
Later, the in laws assured her parents that they will number harass Babita, but she was burnt to death on 10th August, 1998.
Learned companynsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand supported the decision rendered by the High Court.
Altogether 9 witnesses were examined in support of the case of the prosecution.
In his explanation under Section 313 Cr.
Bimla PW.7 have made statements regarding harassment and torture by the in laws of the deceased in relation to the demand for dowry which has been companyroborated by the statement of other witnesses and the documents on record.
Earlier also the in laws of Babita made attempt to set her ablaze and neighbourers rescued her.
The charge under Section 304B IPC framed against the respondent was denied by him who claimed trial.
Further, according to the learned companynsel for the State, the High Court has failed to appreciate that Jugal Kishore PW.1 , Nand Lal PW.4 and Smt.
After the investigation chargesheet was filed.
P.C., the respondent claimed innocence.
He also stated that Girdhari Lal earlier tried to burn her alive by pouring kerosene by companyfining her in a room and when he came to know about this incident, he went to her in laws house alongwith Shyam Lal, Phool Chand, Rajender, Jagdish, Neki Ram and Man Roop where Girdhari Lal and his father begged their pardon for their act of burning her alive and assured that they will number repeat the incident.
In due companyrse, the case came up for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu.
Two defence witnesses were also examined.
Learned companynsel for the appellant State submitted that the deceased Babita died within 7 years of her marriage under unnatural circumstances and respondent did number inform the parents of the deceased regarding the incident.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.
