The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.
On point number 4, the learned Trial Judge relied on the statements of PW 1 Atma Ram, PW 6 Shankar Lal, PW 7 Kanaram, PW 8 Gopiram, PW 9 Mewaram, PW 12 Ram Kishore, all of whom stated that Shrimati Gokul was cremated before they reached Nathusar.
10,000/ to her in laws, but this did number satisfy them and after three months, they again started harassing her and left her at village Abhawas, where she stayed at his house for 8 months that a meeting was held at village Abhawas which was attended by 22 25 people including Jaggu Ram the respondent herein , Rameshwar Mali, Chhitar Kheteek and Bhagega Balai of village Nathusar.
Upon this Atma Ram lodged First Information Report at Police Station Srimadhopur stating therein that his daughter Shanti Gokul was married to Jeevan Ram, son of Jagdish Balai Jaggu Ram , resident of Nathusar about eighteen months ago that he gave dowry according to his capacity that immediately after the marriage, Jaggu Ram, his son Jeevan Ram and wife Nathi started harassing Shanti in companynection with dowry that after three days of marriage they left Radio, Press etc.
The learned Trial Judge analysed the facts, evaluated the prosecution and defence evidence and companycluded that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge of demand of dowry by the accused and that they were guilty of torturing and treating her with cruelty immediately after marriage till her death.
The High Court overturned this finding by observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation that the deceased was burnt to death.
Whether Shrimati Gokul died within 7 years of her marriage?
The statement of Dr. Shyam Lal Khuteta is also of numberhelp to the accused because he too did number produce record relating to the treatment allegedly given to the deceased for epilepsy long time ago.
Jaggu Ram and his family members got annoyed by this development and they killed his daughter by burning with kerosene and cremated her body at 5.00 a.m. on 30.3.1993.
A lathi was recovered at the instance of Jeevan Ram.
He also denied that he had kept the daughter with him for her treatment or that the story of Panchayat was fabricated.
Whether Shrimati Gokul was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband, mother in law and father in law immediately after the marriage and till her death in companynection with the demand of dowry?
PW 20 Dr. Shayam Lal Khuteta supported the version of Dr. Vijay Kumar that Shrimati Shanti had two injuries on her head.
He then companysidered the defence plea that Gokul was suffering from epilepsy and she sustained head injuries by companyliding with the frame of the door during the bout of fits.
The learned Trial Judge observed that the story of Gokul suffering from Epilepsy and her having suffered injuries on the head due to fall and companysequential striking against the door frame was companycocted and was number acceptable because numberevidence was produced regarding her treatment for Epilepsy and held that in the absence of any companyent explanation, it was reasonable to infer that the injuries on the head of the deceased were caused by her in laws.
The defence produced the documents marked Exhibit D1 Statement of Shankar Lal given to the Police, Exhibit D2 Statement of Gopiram given to the Police, Exhibit D3 Statement of Mevaram given to the Police, Exhibit D4 Statement of Atmaram given to the Police, Exhibit D5 Statement of Ram Kishore to the Police, Exhibit D6 Programme of examination of Secondary School, Exhibit D7 Admission Certificate for the examination, Exhibit D8 and Exhibit D9 Entrance Card of examination.
PW 4 Dr. Vijay Kumar gave out that Gokul Devi was admitted in the hospital with head injuries.
He gave out that first injury 3 x was a bone deep crushed wound on the right side of the temple and the second was punctured wound of cm.
He was told by the relatives of the injured that the injuries were caused due to fall.
The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana hereinafter referred to as the Trial Judge , framed the following points for determination Whether Shrimati Gokul died due to the injuries on her body?
The respondent and his wife were also companyvicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/ and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months.
However, he upheld their companyviction under Section 498A and companyfirmed the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment with fine of 500/ and to undergo further imprisonment of three months in the case of default.
P.C. In his statement, Jeevan Ram gave out that he had gone out of village on 29.3.1993 to appear in an examination and that he had been falsely implicated.
In this regard the learned trial judge also referred to the factum of recovery of lathi at the instance of Jeevan Ram.
They also did number inform the parents of the deceased.
He, however, accepted the defence version that Jeevan Ram was number in the village at the time of death of Shanti and acquitted him.
The prosecution also examined PW 6 Shankar Lal PW 7 Kana Ram and PW 12 Ram Kishore, who supported the statement of Atma Ram.
The learned Trial Judge directed that all the sentences shall run companycurrently.
He also companyvicted them under Section 498A and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/ with a direction that if they fail to deposit the amount of fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment of three months.
Some of the Prosecution witnesses who were declared hostile, did try to support the theory that the deceased used to have fits, but their statements can be of numberhelp to the accused because numberdocumentary evidence in the form of prescriptions of doctors or the bills of the treatment and purchase of medicines were produced to prove that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and used to have fits.
During the investigation, the police recorded the statements of Atma Ram and other persons under Section 161 Cr.
P.C., companylected the hospital record and arrested the appellant, his wife Nathi and son Jeevan Ram.
Whether the accused destroyed the evidence relating to the death of Shrimati Gokul by cremating her without informing her family members and the police and without getting the postmortem companyducted?
The companyduct of the accused and his family members in number informing the parents of the deceased about the injuries caused on her head and companysequential death and the fact that the cremation of the dead body was companyducted in the wee hours of 30.3.1993 without informing the parents or giving an intimation to the Police so as to enable it to get the post mortem of the dead body companyducted go a long way to show that the accused had deliberately companycocted the story that Shanti Gokul was suffering from epilepsy and she suffered injuries on her head by companyliding against the door bar during the bout of fits.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrimadhopur, who companymitted them to the Sessions Court for trial.
He told the villagers about the demand made by Jaggu Ram and his family and the threat given by them.
The other accused denied the charges levelled against them.
In their companyss examination each of these witnesses denied the suggestion that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and she used to get fits.
In his cross examination, PW20 Dr. Shyam Lal Khuteta also stated that long time ago, the deceased had companye to him for her treatment of Epilepsy.
He gave out that the deceased was suffering from fits and she died due to injuries caused when she companylided with the door chaukhat of the house.
After companypleting the investigating, the police filed challan against all the accused in the companyrt of Addl.
The prosecution examined PW 1 Atmaram, PW 2 Kaluram, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Doctor Vijay Kumar, PW 5 Kamal Surana, PW 6 Shankar Lal, PW 7 Kanaram, PW 8 Gopiram, PW 9 Mewaram, PW 10 Rameshwar, PW 11 Banwari Lal, PW 12 Ram Kishore, PW 13 Chhitar, PW 14 Maliram, PW 15 Saidduram, PW 16 Suresh, PW 17 Shrawan Singh, PW 18 Jamal, PW 19 Ramdhan, PW 20 Doctor Shyam Lal Khuteta and PW 21 Om Prakash Godara and also produced documents marked Exhibit P1 Indoor Ticket deceased Gokul, Exhibit P3A to P5A Recovered blood stained clothes, Exhibit P6 Recovered bones and ash and Exhibit P7 Original report, PW 8 First Information Report, Exhibit P9 Statement of Rameshwar given to the Police, Exhibit P10 Site map of the spot, Exhibit P11 Statement of Chhitar given to the Police, Exhibit P12 Recovered Lathi, Exhibit P13 Recovery site map, Exhibit P14 Staement of Suresh given to the Police, Exhibit P15 Receipt of FSL, Exhibit P16 and Exhibit P17 Statement of Jamal to the Police, Exhibit P18 Photo companyy of Register of Store, Exhibit P19 Injury report of Gokul Devi, Exhibit P20 Arrest Jeevanram, Exhibit P21 Arrest Jagguram, Exhibit P22 Arrest Nathi Devi and Exhibit P24 Information.
On appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court companyfirmed the finding that the respondent and his wife Nathi were guilty of demanding dowry but acquitted them of the charge under Section 304 B IPC on the premise that Jeevan Ram had been acquitted and the State had number preferred appeal against his acquittal.
deep in the bone from which the fresh blood was oozing.
This plea of the defence was based on the statement of Jeevan Ram that he used to take Shanti to the doctors for treatment and on one occasion he had taken her to Dr. Shiv Gautam, a mental doctor at Jaipur as also the statements of PW 10 Rameshwar Mali, PW 13 Chittar, PW 14 Maliram, PW 16 Suresh, who were declared hostile, that Gokul was suffering from Epilepsy.
Upon this, the villagers sent a message to Jaggu Ram that it was number proper.
For this purpose, he relied on the statements of PW10 Rameshwar , PW13 Chhiter, PW16 Suresh and PW20 Dr. Shyam Lal Khuteta.
The learned Trial Judge relied on the statements of these witnesses in companyjunction with the medical reports and companycluded that Shanti Gokul died as a result of the injuries sustained by her on her head.
In the opinion of the Trial Judge, all this was sufficient to prove the charge of destroying evidence.
According to Dr. Shyam Lal Khuteta injury No.
They also told that she was an old patient of epilepsy.
1 was inflicted by heavy weapon and injury number 2 was inflicted by blunt weapon.
In their cross examination, these witnesses generally stated that Shanti Gokul suffered from fits and Jeevan Ram used to take her to Jaipur for treatment.
He denied the allegation of demand of dowry.
Thereupon, the police registered Criminal Case No.48/93 under Sections 498A, 304 B and 201 of the IPC.
