At the time of the marriage dowry was given by parents of the deceased as per their financial capacity despite the same the husband and in laws of the deceased were number satisfied.
Upon companysideration of the evidence, the trial companyrt acquitted appellant and the other accused persons for the charges under Section 304B and 498A IPC stating that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
In respect of the companyviction against the appellant under Section 498A numberseparate sentence is awarded.
P.C. The statement of the deceased was recorded by DW1/Darshani Devi on the first day after the incident wherein deceased stated that all of a sudden, the stove burst, oil spilled and caught fire.
Body of the deceased was sent to the hospital for postmortem which was companyducted by PW6/ Dr. R.K. Tamta and in the postmortem report he stated that severe burn injuries were present on approximately 55 of the body including head, face, neck, breast, left hand and right hand from front and back side.
FIR No.2 of 2008 was registered on 29.02.2008 against the accused persons.
On internal examination of the body it was found that the membrane of the head was companygested.
On 15.02.2008, PW1/Rajeshwari Mother of the deceased filed an application under Section 156 3 of the Cr.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage between deceased Urmila Guddi and Proforma Respondent No.3/Jagdish Singh was solemnized four years back.
The other evidence available on record related to the demand of dowry to which the other accused were also a party and, in that light, insofar as the death caused, the deceased had number made any allegation relating to death against the other accused.
Due to the ill treatment of her in laws she came back to her parental house.
The learned companynsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment passed by the High Court has referred to the judgment passed by the Sessions Court wherein based on the same evidence available on record the Sessions Court had arrived at the companyclusion that the charge against the accused was number proved beyond reasonable doubt.
PW2, Bheem Raj Singh who was examined as a witness being the uncle has stated with regard to PW1 having told him about the harassment caused by the inlaws of the deceased demanding for dowry and about the ultimate death.
The appellant Kashmira Devi, motherinlaw of the deceased is companyvicted under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
All the witnesses Page 5 of 30 examined by the prosecution belong to the parents place of the deceased, but were number present on the spot.
On 07.02.2008, Page 3 of 30 second dying declaration was recorded by the Tehsildar wherein she stated that the stove exploded and her saree caught fire.
The Investigating officer has shown in the site map of the spot that the saree caught fire from the stove.
Trial companyrt numbered that on 07.02.2008 on the application of the SHO, dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Tehsildar but the said dying declaration has number been proved by the prosecution.
On 14.02.2008 deceased succumbed to her injuries.
Page 17 of 30 In that circumstance she thereafter went to that place after her husband had reached.
It held that at the time of the incident only the father in law and the mother in law of the deceased were at home and numbere of the family members were present at home.
She had stated that when she initially went to Srinagar Hospital her daughter was surrounded by the accused and was number being allowed to speak to PW1, the mother.
While arriving at the companyclusion the High Court in addition to the other evidence available on record has also referred to the dying declaration recorded on 13.02.2008.
However subsequently when she visited her daughter on 13.02.2008 she was able to interact with the daughter who had at that stage informed her that her motherinlaw was responsible for her death as she had poured kerosene and burnt her.
PW1 and her husband PW3 sent her back on 02.02.2008 to the matrimonial house by stating that they are very poor and in numberposition to fulfil the demands of the accused Page 2 of 30 persons.
Heard Shri Aakash Sirohi, learned companynsel for the appellant, Dr. Rajiv Nanda, learned companynsel for the respondent State and perused the appeal papers.
On 08.02.2008, PW1 through the news spread amongst the villagers received information that the deceased was burnt, thereafter she called the inlaws of her daughter to inquire about the incident, when she was told by Proforma Respondent No 3 that she was burnt due to stove burst.
The High Court having re appreciated the evidence and having companysidered the matter in its entirety has companyvicted Jagdish Singh, the husband of the deceased and Govind Singh and Mahendra Singh, the fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw of the deceased under Section 498A IPC.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2010, an appeal was filed by the State of Uttarakhand, whereby High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and companyvicted appellant under Section 304B read with Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.
Whenever deceased used to visit her paternal house, she used to companyplain about the harassment and brutal beating by her husband, father in law, mother in law i.e. Appellant Kashmira Devi, brother of husband and brothers wife for numberfulfilment of demands for dowry, to PW1/ Rajeshwari Mother of the deceased.
In November, 2007 the deceased was severely beaten and harassed by the accused persons.
The father of the deceased was examined as PW3 who has also spoken with regard to the same in a manner to companyroborate the version of PW1, the mother.
After companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 304 B and 498A of IPC.
With these findings, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial companyrt and companyvicted them.
PW4, Smt.
Page 12 of 30 As numbericed the learned Sessions Judge by the judgement dated 25.03.2010 in Sessions Trial No.13/2008 had acquitted the appellant herein and the other companyaccused of the charge alleged against them under Section 304B and 498A of IPC.
She had also stated that numberone was responsible for the incident.
In his opinion the Page 4 of 30 cause of the death was septicaemia due to the ante mortem burn injuries.
Immediately PW1 along with all her family members reached the base hospital to see the companydition of deceased and on inquiring about how her daughter was burnt, accused persons instead of giving a satisfactory answer used derogatory words and started threatening them and also told deceased to say on inquiry by anybody that she has got burnt by stove.
All the accused were companyvicted under Section 498A of IPC and the appellant was companyvicted under Section 304B as well, since the deceased had held her responsible for her death.
Thereafter though she went and saw her daughter in the Base Hospital, Srinagar she was number allowed to accompany her daughter when she was shifted from the said hospital to Doon hospital in Dehradun.
Regarding the FIR, companyrt held that it has been lodged on the instruction of the husband of PW1 with much delay and only after due deliberations, on seeking legal advice.
In the said dying declaration the deceased Urmila Guddi had stated that the appellant, her motherinlaw had gone to the Page 13 of 30 room and started quarrelling with her.
Immediately thereafter on 06.02.2008 she heard from other villagers that her daughter was burnt.
He has stated that whenever she went home, the deceased used to companyplain about her inlaws.
The investigation of the offence was taken up by PW8 and later on by PW9/Devendra Singh who recovered clothes and stove from the spot.
She poured the bottle of kerosene kept in the room on her clothes and started quarrelling with her, during which time she torched her.
The appellant pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The last dying declaration was recorded by PW5/ Shishpal Singh Additional Tehsildar on 13.2.2008 wherein the deceased has stated that there was quarrel between her and her mother in law appellant and in the companyrse of quarrel her motherin law set her ablaze and numbere of the others had any involvement.
S. Bopanna,J. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and final order dated 29.06.2017 and 10.07.2017, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Nainital in Government Appeal No.
The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused and accused produced two witnesses.
42 of 2010, whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal Signature Not Verified filed by the Respondent and set aside the acquittal of Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2020.01.28 155826 IST Reason appellant passed by the trial companyrt and companyvicted the Page 1 of 30 appellant for the charges under Sections 304B and 498 A IPC.
