AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellants had faced trial under Section 498-A, 304-B in alternative Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) in
FIR No. 568 dated 24.08.2014 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (South).
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement of Shabana Bano (since deceased) recorded on 24.08.2014. Victim stated that she was
married in the year 2010. After her marriage her mother-in-law Sayra Bano and sister-in-law Heena Bano used to harass her on account of demand
of dowry. Her husband had never harassed her on account of demand of dowry. No child was born to her out of her wedlock. On 23.08.2014 at about
8.00 p.m., she was working in the kitchen and the gas stove was on. Her father-in-law was sitting outside and was taking his meals, whereas, her
husband had gone out for work. Her mother-in-law threw kerosene oil on her and as a result she caught fire because the gas stove was on.
On the basis of the statement of the victim, formal FIR was registered under Section 498-A, 307 I.P.C. Statement of the victim was recorded by the
Magistrate on 24.08.2014, wherein, victim stated that Sayra Bano was her mother-in-law and Heena Bano was her sister-in-law and they used to
harass her. On the day of occurrence, her sister-in-law said something to her mother-in-law and due to this reason both of them quarrelled.
Thereafter, she (victim) came in the kitchen quietly. Her mother-in-law and sisterin-law came in the kitchen and threw kerosene oil on her and as a
result, she suffered burn injuries. Kerosene oil had been thrown on her by her mother-in-law.
Victim died on 29.08.2014.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants.
Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Section 498-A, 304-B in the alternative Section 302 I.P.C. Appellants did not plead guilty and
claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses, during trial. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Appellants
examined two witnesses in their defence.
Learned Trial Court ordered the conviction of appellants under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years and a fine of Rupees five thousand each and it was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months. Appellants were also convicted qua offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and fine of Rupees ten thousand each. It was further ordered that, in case of default of payment of fine, appellants shall further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellants were acquitted qua charge framed against them under Section 304-B I.P.C. Hence, the
present appeal by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants were liable to be acquitted as they had been falsely involved in this case. No reliance
could be placed on the statement made by the victim before the police or before the Magistrate as the same was a tutored one. Relatives of the victim
were present at the time of the recording of her statement Exhibit P-3 as well as Exhibit P-13. Appellant Heena Bano was a young unmarried girl
aged about eighteen years at the time of the incident.
Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal.
Admittedly, victim was married to Javed, son of appellant no.1 and brother of appellant no.2 in the year 2010. Victim has died on account of burn
injuries. There is no dispute regarding the said fact also. Moreover, as per Exhibit P-9 postmortem examination report, the cause of death of the
deceased was septicemic shock brought about as a result of antemortem dry heat flame burns sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Deceased had suffered burn injuries in the kitchen.
The question that requires consideration is, as to whether, the deceased had accidentally suffered burn injuries or she had been set on fire as per the
prosecution version. Incident in the present case had occurred on 23.08.2014 at about 8.00 p.m. Statement of the victim was recorded on 24.08.2014
at about 3.50 p.m. Victim has specifically stated in her statement that she was being harassed by the appellants on account of demand of dowry. She
has further stated in her initial version Exhibit P-3 that kerosene oil had been thrown on her by her mother-in-law while she was working in the kitchen
and she caught fire as the gas stove was on. Although, victim has alleged that she was being harassed by the appellants on account of demand of
dowry, but so far as the factum of throwing of kerosene oil on the victim is concerned, the said allegation has been attributed by her to her mother-in-
law in her statement Exhibit P-3 recorded by the police. Before the Magistrate statement of the victim was recorded on the same day i.e., 24.08.2014,
wherein also she has stated that she was being harassed by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Initially, she stated that kerosene oil had been thrown
on her by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law while answering question no.2, but in the later part of her answer she has clarified that the kerosene oil
was thrown on her by her mother-in-law. The dying declarations made by the deceased Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-13 inspire confidence. The victim
who had suffered serious burn injuries has not involved her husband or her father-in-law in this case, but has levelled allegations against her mother-in-
law and sister-in-law only.
PW-1 Madroop Ali, PW-2 Madan Singh have not supported the prosecution case, during trial.
PW-3 Begam Bano, mother of the deceased deposed that her daughter Shabana was married to Javed about five years prior to the recording of her
statement. After her marriage, Shabana used to be harassed by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law on account of demand of dowry. They had raised
demand of Rupees two lacs and a motor-cycle. The said fact had been told by her daughter Shabana. In August 2014, she had received information
that her daughter had been set on fire. She along with other family members had gone to the hospital to meet her daughter. Shabana had told her that
she had been set on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
PW-4 Rustom, maternal grand father of the deceased and PW-17 Pappu Khan, uncle of the deceased have corroborated the statement of PW-3.
PW-8 Dr. Deepali Pathak and PW-14 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma have proved the postmortem examination report Exhibit P-9.
Remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are with regard to the investigation conducted by the police officers.
Appellants have examined DW-1 Munshi Khan and DW-2 Mohd. Bilal in their defence. The said witnesses have deposed that the appellants had not
harassed the deceased on account of demand of dowry. Rather Shabana had set herself on fire.
Thus, from the statements of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-17 and the dying declarations suffered by the victim, it is evident that she was being treated with
cruelty in connection with demand of dowry by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Statements of DW-1 and DW-2 fail to rebut the statements of
PW-3, PW-4 and PW-17 and the dying declarations suffered by the deceased. It appears that the defence witnesses being neighbours of the
appellants have deposed in favour of the appellants. Rather statements of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-17 being natural inspire confidence. The dying
declarations suffered by the deceased corroborate the statements of witnesses PW-3, PW-4 and PW-17. Hence, learned Trial Court has rightly
ordered the conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A I.P.C.
So far as the offence falling under Section 302 I.P.C. is concerned, although PW-3 has deposed that her daughter had told her that both the appellants
had poured kerosene oil on her, but the dying declarations suffered by the victim are otherwise. Victim has stated in her first dying declaration
recorded before the police that her mother-in-law had come in the kitchen and had poured kerosene oil on her and she had caught fire because gas
stove was on. In her dying declaration recorded before the Magistrate also she has specifically stated that kerosene oil had been poured on her by her
mother-in-law. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly ordered the conviction of appellant
Sayra Bano under Section 302 I.P.C., but has erred in ordering conviction of appellant Heena Bano under Section 302 I.P.C. So far as allegation
falling under Section 302 I.P.C. is concerned, the same is not attributed to appellant Heena Bano by the victim specifically in her dying declaration.
Although, appellant Heena Bano had been treating the victim with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, but it cannot be presumed that she
also must have assisted her mother in the commission of offence of murder of the deceased. Rather from the evidence on record, it transpires that the
murder of the deceased had been committed by her mother-in-law Sayra Bano by pouring kerosene oil on her which resulted in burn injuries to the
deceased. Hence, appellant Heena Bano is liable to be acquitted with regard to the charge framed against her under Section 302 I.P.C.
Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellant Sayaro Bano under Section 498-A, 302 I.P.C. is maintained. Appellant Heena Bano is acquitted
qua charge framed against her under Section 302 I.P.C. Conviction of appellant Heena Bano qua offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. is
maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of appellant Heena Bano under Section 498-A I.P.C. is
reduced from rigorous imprisonment from two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year and two months. Sentence qua fine is maintained.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.