Ramphool and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—On 30th of May, 2006 Mst. Kanidevi wife of Ramphool (appellant No. 1 herein) was found hanging in a room constructed at Plot bearing No. 31, Hariom Nagar, Luniawas, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Kanota, District Jaipur (Rural). Mst. Kanidevi was married with appellant No. 1 - Ramphool fifteen-years before her death.

In the instant case, the criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of the written-report (Exhibit-P/1) presented by Devanand (PW-3), the brother of Mst. Kanidevi before Sawai Singh (PW-15), who was then posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kanota.

In the said written-report (Exhibit-P/1), the complainant/brother of deceased had named Ramphool, husband of deceased Mst. Kanidevi, Chhajuram, father-in-law and Smt. Narangi Devi, mother-in-law and Arjun, brother-in-law of the deceased - Mst. Kanidevi, as accused, who used to harass and maltreat deceased Mst. Kanidevi on account of dowry and had committed her murder.

Peculiar feature of the present case is that as per Medical Evidence and the Post Mortem Report, the cause of death of deceased - Mst. Kanidevi was Asphyxia, due to smothering (closer of mouth & nostril), and after causing death, the dead-body was hanged to make it a case of suicide.

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Jaipur District Jaiupr, vide its impugned judgment dated 19.01.2008, held the appellants, namely Ramphool (husband), Chhajuram (father-in-law) and Smt. Narangi Devi (mother-in-law) guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, whereas the appellant - Arjun Lal (devar) was convicted only for offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

Having convicted the appellants for the above said offences, the trial Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under :-

"Appellants - Ramphool, Chhajuram and Smt. Narangi Devi :

For offence under Section 302 I.P.C. they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment.

"Appellants - Ramphool, Chhajuram, Smt. Narangi Devi and Arjun Lal :

For offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. they were sentenced to undergo one year''s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment.

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently."

Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the appellants have instituted the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before this Court praying interalia that their conviction and sentence be set aside and they be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

The written-report (Exhibit-P/1), presented by the complainant - Devanand (PW-3), brother of the deceased, when translated into English reads as under :-

"To,

The In-charge,

Police Station, Kanota

Jaipur (Rajasthan)

Subject : Regarding murder of our sister due to hanging.

It is submitted that our sister Mst. Kanidevi daughter of Lalaram Jatwa was married with Ramphool s/o. Chhajuram resident of Luniawas about fifteen-years ago. After sometime of the marriage, she was harassed on account of demand of dowry and was also given beating. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (devar) used to treat her badly and sometime food was not given to her. They never permitted our sister to visit our house. Ramphool and his father had not visited our house from last ten-years and furthermore, in any family function, our sister alone used to visit us. On 30.05.2015 our sister had been hanged. This was disclosed to us by other persons. Immediately thereafter, we left our house at Village Mangiyawas and reached at the matrimonial home of our sister - Mst. Kanidevi. We had talked with Chhajuram, father-in-law of our sister. He gave us a false reply by saying that we have killed your sister, you may do whatever you want. A lady named Panchi, who was in their house, had also given reply to us in a humiliating manner. Therefore, hearing taunts and tolerating the same, we have come to the Police Station to lodge the report. Therefore, action be taken against the accused.

Devanand Jatwa Jagdish Prasad Jatwa Village Mangiyawas, Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur Tehsil Sanganer Dt. 30.05.2006"

On the basis of above said written-report (Exhibit-P/1) presented before Sawai Singh (PW-15), who was then posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kanota, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/8), bearing No. 229/2006 was registered at Police Station, Kanota, District Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

The appellants were charged for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. and in alternate for offence under Section 302 /34 I.P.C.

Dr. Omprakash Meena (PW-11), being a Member of the Medical Board, along with Dr. Rajendra Patni and Dr. Smt. Santosh Pareek, had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Mst. Kanidevi, aged about twenty-seven years.

In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/14), Medical Board had found as many as seven injuries on the person of deceased Mst. Kanidevi :-

Lacerated wounds, two in number 1 x 1/2 cm in size in middle of lower lip inner side of mucous membrane.

Torn left ear lobules.

Abrasion, six in number of 1 1/2 x 1/4 cm size on left side of chest below breast line.

Abrasion 2 x 1/2 cm anterior side of right shoulder.

Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm lateral side of right breast

Abrasion 3 cm x 1/2 cm left side of chest axillary line below breast.

Bruise over both sides of nostril."

On internal examination, Medical Board had found that the brain, both the lungs and heart were congested.

As per opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death of deceased was smothering i.e. closer of mouth & nostril. Furthermore, all injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the ligature mark on the neck was post-mortem in nature.

Suffice it to say, in the present case, the prosecution, during trial had examined in all fifteen-witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellants and has further relied upon twenty-nine documents i.e. Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/29.

In the Court, Jagdish Prasad (PW-1), cousin brother of deceased, being son of uncle (chacha) (younger brother of the father of deceased), Devanand (PW-3) brother of the deceased, Bhagirath (PW-4) another younger brother of the deceased, Sukharam (PW-5), uncle of the deceased, Omprakash (PW-7), another brother of the deceased and Ram Kanwari (PW-10), bhabhi of the deceased, being wife of Bhagirath (PW-4), have deposed that Mst. Kanidevi about fifteen-years ago was married with Ramphool, she had given a birth to a son and all four accused, namely Ramphool, husband, Chhajuram, father-in-law, Smt. Narangi Devi, mother-in-law and Arjun Lal, brother-in-law (devar) used to maltreat and harass Mst. Kanidevi on account of demand of dowry and also used to give beating to her.

Before the Court witnesses have testified that Sukharam (PW-5), being uncle, Jagdish Prasad (PW-1) being uncle''s son, Devanand (PW-3), brother of deceased, Bhagirath (PW-4), another younger brother of deceased and Omprakash (PW-7), another brother of deceased i.e. all three brothers and Jagdish (PW-1) son of uncle of the deceased, had reached at Village of the accused after learning about the death of Mst. Kanidevi and had complained against the conduct of the accused regarding maltreat meted to Mst. Kanidevi by the accused-appellants. These witnesses have also deposed regarding the demand of dowry made by the accused.

Puran Mal (PW-2), in the Court stated that the Police had not conducted any proceedings in his presence. However, this witness proved Exhibit-P/3 and Exhibit-P/4, arrest memos of the accused-appellants, Ramphool and Chhajuram respectively. However, this witness admitted that he had signed Exhibit-P/5, memo containing description of the dead-body of deceased and Exhibit-P/6, whereby rope was recovered by the Police from the spot.

In cross-examination made by the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness admitted that Chhajuram is his brother and Mst. Kanidevi was the wife of his nephew. However, this witness denied the maltreatment at the behest of accused-appellants.

Sualal (PW-6), in the Court stated that Mst. Kanidevi was his neighbour. He had not seen any incident. However, this witness admitted that he had attested memo containing description of dead-body (Exhibit-P/5) and memo (Exhibit-P/6), whereby dead-body was taken into possession by the Police.

Smt. Babubai (PW-8), who was then posted as Constable at Police Station, Kanota has proved arrest memo (Exhibit-P/13), whereby Smt. Narangi Devi, appellant was arrested.

Phool Chand (PW-9), in the Court deposed that Mst. Kanidevi was his sister from brotherhood in his presence vide memo Exhibit-P/11, Police had taken silver jewelry worn by the deceased into possession.

Pappu Lal (PW-12) and Anil Kumar Bairwa (PW-13) being photographers have taken photographs of the spot, along with the photographs of the dead-body.

Sawai Singh (PW-15), being Station House Officer and Investigating Officer of the case, proved various facets of the investigation.

Thereafter, the statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and pleaded innocence.

In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant, namely Ramphool and Chhajuram have taken a stand that they were not present at the scene of occurrence and they have been falsely implicated.

Accused-appellants, namely Smt. Narangi Devi and Arjun Lal, in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have pleaded innocent.

In defence, the accused have examined as many as five witnesses, namely Mahendra (DW-1), Narendra Kumar (DW-2), Mukesh Kumar (DW-3), Lajpat Rai (DW-4) and Panchu Ram (PW-5). However, defence has also relied upon statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-D/1 to Exhibit-D/5 and also exhibited documents vide Exhibit-D/6 to D/11 & Exhibit-D/6 to Exhibit-D/7.

Mahendra (DW-1) stated that he knew accused. The deceased - Mst. Kanidevi was living happily with her in-laws. The witness had never heard regarding demand of dowry. On 23.05.2006 (date seem to be wrongly given by the witness) he had gone to the old house of Chhajuram and found that in his new house, Mst. Kanidevi had hanged herself. At that time, mother-in-law of Mst. Kanidevi was weeping and the people, who had gathered there, had asked that husband of Mst. Kanidevi be called from the factory. The witness, along with Narendra had gone on the motor-cycle to the factory where Ramphool was working. The witness came along with Ramphool to the house where Mst. Kanidevi was found hanging. Meanwhile Chhajuram had also returned from his field to the house.

Narendra Kumar (DW-2) stated that on 30.05.2006 he being a neighbour, had reached at the plot of Chhajuram, where fodder was stored, as he had learnt that in the said plot, Mst. Kanidevi had hanged herself.

Mukesh Kumar (DW-3) stated that Ramphool was working along with him in a factory. On 30.05.2006 at about 06:00 P.M. two boys from the Village of Ramphool came and took him along. Lastly, this witness stated that on the day of occurrence from 10:00 A.M. to 06:00 P.M. Ramphool had remained at the factory along with him.

Lajpat Rai (DW-4) stated that Chhajuram is his neighbour. This witness stated that at the time of marriage, Arjun Lal was four-&-half years old. This witness further stated that Mst. Kanidevi was kept well at his matrimonial home and accused had never raised any demand of dowry. Lastly, this witness stated that he, along with Chhajuram had gone to Village Kanpuria and after returning from there on 30.05.2006 they learnt that Mst. Kanidevi had hanged herself.

Panchuram (DW-5) is also a neighbour. He has deposed in the Court that Mst. Kanidevi was living happily in her matrimonial home and the accused never maltreated her. On the day of occurrence, in the afternoon, they learnt that Mst. Kanidevi had hanged herself. At that time, no person of the family was present in the house. They had informed the Police. Chhajuram, along with Lajpat Ray (DW-4) had gone to Village Kaniyawas, whereas Ramphool was at his factory.

Mr. R.N. Khandelwal, the learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Mahesh Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants, has urged before this Court that there is no eye-witness to the murder of Mst. Kanidevi.

It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that since the marriage was fifteen-years old, no presumption under Section 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn against the accused-appellants.

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the house from where dead-body was recovered is a deserted house of the accused and the same was used for the storage of fodder and, thus, until or unless anybody had seen occurrence, present appellants cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that at the time of occurrence, appellant - Ramphool was present in the factory and appellant - Chhajuram had gone to Village Kaniyawas and, thus, until or unless prosecution prove that any of the appellants was seen in the room where Mst. Kanidevi had died, presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn against the accused.

Way back in 1988 Justice M.M. Punchhi, as His Lordship then was Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab and Haryana) (DB) 1989 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 18, regarding application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in the case of death of the wife where husband is prosecuted observed as under :-

Much water has flown under the bridges since them. Section 106 , Indian Evidence Act, 1872, stands rusted by dis-use in criminal, cases. In the backdrop of thousands and thousands of dowry-death cases in which direct evidence of the crime is not available due to the set-up of homes in India, we feel a time has come to employ the said provision to meet an exceptional situation; in appropriate case when it would be disproportionately difficult by the prosecution to establish facts. By and large in such cases, the young bride, by tradition is displaced from her parental roof to go under the roof of her husband''s family. Being a stranger in that environment and the trauma she experiences by her transplantation, it is her legitimate due that the people who have brought her to that house, look after her needs and give her the necessary protection, physical and mental, so that she takes roots in the new soil. It is elementary that she has freedom from fear in the first few years till she gains ground. If fear be instilled in her mind by the attitude of the husband and/or his family members she may even be afraid to go to sleep, lest anything be done to her while asleep. If the tradition bound society puts the bride in the four walls of a new house and those four-walls not remain open to the view and gaze of others all the time, and in that closeted set-up her live body is turned into a corpse or is made to turn into a corpse I see then no reason why the society cannot insist the inmates of the house, being accountable in terms of section 106 , Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to disclose facts especially within the knowledge of the accused. As it seems to us, this is one of the exceptional situations the provision was designed to meet. Vivian Bose. J. says further in the same report preserving the exceptional situation

"This is a section which must be considered in a commonsense way and the balance of convenience and the disproportion of the labour that would be involved in finding out and proving certain facts balanced against the triviality of the issue at stake and the case with which the accused could prove them, are all matters that must be taken into consideration. The section cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of cases, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts."

"20. As it appears to us, in the changing social pattern, With the greed for dowry and lust for money respect for human life, and more so of the female-victim involved, has gone with the wind. The closed doors behind. which such crimes are committed, the opportunity to choose the time of the commission of crime with the accused, the nonavailability of direct evidence and the non-availability of even circumstantial evidence, which would complete the chain of guilt, has led to a deplorable situation putting to ridicule the rules of trial and the role of the judge.

It is well recognised in criminal law of breach of trust that where property is entrusted to another, it is the duty of that other to give the true account of what he did with the property so entrusted to him and his failure to do so raises under section 105 a presumption that he had criminally misappropriated the property so entrusted to him. We view that the position of a bride, cannot be worse. Her welfare and physical protection is also in trust with the people in whose care she has been put in and if she has been deprived of her life, the person to whom she stood entrusted must necessarily account for as he or she alone is supposed to have a special knowledge about the crime especially when he or she was the last person to be seen together or expected to be together with the deceased. It would not be out of place to note a quotation from Syrus-Judex-damnatur-cum-nocens absolvitur. "The Judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted."

This view is also reiterated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh, , and His Lordship had observed as under :-

"Discussion and conclusion

Questioning the decision of the High Court acquitting Thakur Singh, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal.

We find that the High Court has not at all considered the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.1 This section provides, inter alia, that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Illustrations

(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.

(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.

Way back in Shambu Nath Mehra Vs. The State of Ajmer, , this Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and held that the section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and it is well nigh impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was said:

"This [Section 101 ] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not."

In a specific instance in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, , this Court held that when the wife is injured in the dwelling home where the husband ordinarily resides, and the husband offers no explanation for the injuries to his wife, then the circumstances would indicate that the husband is responsible for the injuries. It was said:

"Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime."

Reliance was placed by this Court on Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, , in which case the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife inside his house. Since the death had occurred in his custody, it was held that the appellant was under an obligation to give an explanation for the cause of death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant was a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife.

Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, , this Court observed that since the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home and the appellant had not set up a case that the offence was committed by somebody else or that there was a possibility of an outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.

In Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , this Court observed as follows:

"It bears repetition that the appellant and the deceased family members were the only occupants of the room and it was therefore incumbent on the appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt."

More recently, in Gian Chand and Others Vs. State of Haryana, , a large number of decisions of this Court were referred to and the interpretation given to Section 106 of the Evidence Act in Shambhu Nath Mehra was reiterated. One of the decisions cited in Gian Chand is that of State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others etc., which gives a rather telling example explaining the principle behind Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the following words:

"During arguments we put a question to learned Senior Counsel for the respondents based on a hypothetical illustration. If a boy is kidnapped from the lawful custody of his guardian in the sight of his people and the kidnappers disappeared with the prey, what would be the normal inference if the mangled dead body of the boy is recovered within a couple of hours from elsewhere. The query was made whether upon proof of the above facts an inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed the boy. Learned Senior Counsel finally conceded that in such a case the inference is reasonably certain that the boy was killed by the kidnappers unless they explain otherwise."

The law, therefore, is quite well settled that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be known only to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove. These facts need to be explained by the accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts.

Applying this principle to the facts of the case, since Dhapu Kunwar died an unnatural death in the room occupied by her and Thakur Singh, the cause of the unnatural death was known to Thakur Singh. There is no evidence that anybody else had entered their room or could have entered their room. Thakur Singh did not set up any case that he was not in their room or not in the vicinity of their room while the incident occurred nor did he set up any case that some other person entered the room and caused the unnatural death of his wife. The facts relevant to the cause of Dhapu Kunwar''s death being known only to Thakur Singh, yet he chose not to disclose them or to explain them. The principle laid down in Section 106 of the Evidence Act is clearly applicable to the facts of the case and there is, therefore, a very strong presumption that Dhapu Kunwar was murdered by Thakur Singh.

It is not that Thakur Singh was obliged to prove his innocence or prove that he had not committed any offence. All that was required of Thakur Singh was to explain the unusual situation, namely, of the unnatural death of his wife in their room, but he made no attempt to do"

The similar view was also formulated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram, , and His Lordship has observed as under :-

It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in In Re: Naina Mohamed, .

There is considerable force in the argument of counsel for the State that in the facts of this case as well it should be held that the respondent having been seen last with the deceased, the burden was upon him to prove what happened thereafter, since those facts were within his special knowledge. Since, the respondent failed to do so, it must be held that he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. This circumstance, therefore, provides the missing link in the chain of circumstances which prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt."

From a bare perusal of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh (supra), it is evident that the Hon''ble Apex Court had relied upon the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, , wherein it was held that in case the wife is injured in dwelling home where the husband ordinarily resides and the husband offers no explanation for the injuries to his wife, then the circumstances would indicate that the husband is responsible for the injuries.

In the present case, after nostril of the deceased were closed, she died as a result of smothering and her dead-body was hanged. As is evident from the Post Mortem Report that the ligature mark over the neck is post-mortem in nature, thus, same occurred after the death. Thus, having caused death of Mst. Kanidevi, the accused in order to misdirect the investigation, had given it a colour of hanging.

We may further note here that the deceased suffered abrasions on the lip and on the chest, which is indicative of the fact that deceased had resisted smothering and in struggle has received injuries. Thus, it is for the husband to explain as to how his wife has received injury and that, too, in a dwelling home, which is in occupation and possession of the family of the husband.

Thus, presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, in view of law laid down in the case of Amarjit Singh'' case (supra) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh (supra), which we have already extensively reproduced is to be drawn against the husband.

Thus, there is over implication and an attempt has been made to rope in entire family. Our this view is fortified by the observations made by Hon''ble Apex Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, as under:-

"For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused"

In view of absence of eye-witness account, we cannot draw this presumption against appellants, Chhajuram, father-in-law and Smt. Narangi Devi, mother-in-law.

Consequently, we acquit them (Chhajuram, father-in-law and Smt. Narangi Devi, mother-in-law) of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., while maintaining their conviction for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.

As a result of above discussions, the appeal of appellant No. 1, Ramphool is, hereby, dismissed, by affirming his conviction recorded and sentence pronounced by the trial Court. However, the appeal preferred by appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Chhajuram and Smt. Narangi Devi is partly allowed. Conviction pronounced and sentence awarded upon them by the trial Court, qua offence of murder is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C.

On 14.11.2007, the statements of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Chhajuram and Smt. Narangi Devi under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In the said statement, the age of appellant No. 2, Chhajuram has been noted as fifty-six years, whereas the age of appellant No. 2, Smt. Narangi Devi has been noted as fifty-years.

Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in year, 2006 and the period of nine-years have already elapsed. Appellants, Chhajuram and Smt. Narangi Devi, both were arrested on 31.05.2006 and on 01.06.2006 respectively. On 01.06.2006 they were sent to the Judicial Custody. Smt. Narangi Devi remained in the custody during trial till 16.10.2006, whereas Chhajuram was granted bail on 19.09.2006. Thereafter, the trial Court, after convicting and sentencing them, had sent them to jail on 19.01.2008. Their sentence was suspended during appeal as they were ordered to be released on bail on 20.02.2008. Thus, both the appellants, Chhajuram and Smt. Narangi Devi have remained in jail for a few months. After recording their acquittal of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. they now only stand convicted for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.

Considering the age and antecedents of appellants, Chhajuram and Smt. Narangi Devi and the sufferance of protracted trial, we are of the view that they can be released on probation.

It has come in the prosecution evidence that Arjun Lal, at the time of marriage of Ramphool and Mst. Kanidevi, was aged about four-&-half years. He has also been convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.

Considering the age and antecedents of the appellant - Arjun Lal and the sufferance of protracted trial, we are also of the view that he can also be granted benefit of probation.

Thus, all these three appellants, namely Chhajuram, Smt. Narangi Devi and Arjun Lal are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one-year, subject to deposit of a cost of Rs. 5000/- each. They shall also furnish a personal bond/bonds by the sureties before the trial Court, in which it shall be specified that during the period of probation, they shall be of peace and maintain good conduct.

We empower the trial Court also, to specify any other condition in the requisite bonds and the bonds to be furnished by the sureties. The trial Court is further empowered to call upon the accused to serve their sentence, in case of any breach of terms and conditions of the bonds to be furnished by the appellants before the trial Court. The cost, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.

With the above modification, the present appeal stands disposed of.