Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the present case, the learned trial court has committed grave illegality while convicting all the six members of the family under Section 302 IPC only on the basis of the dying declaration made by the deceased, without any corroborative evidence, particularly when the alleged dying declaration is totally vague and even does not disclose the names of all the accused, the role attributed to any one of them and the manner, in which she was set on fire. Learned counsel vehemently argued that in the present case, all the three sons of appellants Ishwar Singh and Bhartho were married and they were residing separately, and were also doing their business separately. Appellants Ishwar Singh and Bhartho along with their son Inder Singh and his wife Rani were residing in village Mehna, whereas two brothers, namely appellant Dharam Pal (now died) and Dilbagh Singh with their respective wives were residing separately in village Bahu Akbarpur. Learned counsel argued that in the present case, there was no dispute with regard to the demand of dowry. There is no evidence on record to prove that at any point of time, any demand of dowry was made from Jaiwanti or her parents. Learned counsel argued that it is strange that in this case, no allegation was made by Jaiwanti against her husband. If there is any demand of dowry, it is normally the husband who makes such a demand. When the parents and other brothers of the husband were residing separately, there can be no demand of dowry by them. Learned counsel argued that this contention has also been upheld by the trial court, while holding that the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 304-B IPC are completely missing. According to learned counsel for the appellants, Dilbagh Singh along with his wife Jaiwanti was residing in one room of the ancestral house in village Bahu Akbarpur and they wanted to take possession of another room, which could not have been given to one brother in partition. Therefore, while Jaiwanti accidentally caught fire, she falsely implicated all the family members of her in-laws, giving clean chit to her husband. Learned counsel further argued that a bare reading of the dying declaration clearly indicates that the said statement is totally vague, sketchy and doubtful. It reads that at 7.00 PM, she was not quarreling, her `Jeth' and `Jethani' were quarreling with her. They were demanding Rs.15,000/- from her. They have beatings to her husband. Her parents-in-law were also demanding money. Her `Jeth' and `Jethani' and the parents-in-law poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire. Her husband is innocent. Learned counsel argued that in the said statement, the deceased did not mention name of any of the accused. She was having two `Jeths' and two `Jethanis'. She used the words `Jeth' and `Jethani' singularly. It is not clear to whom she had referred to in the statement. The dispute was with regard to Rs. 15,000/-. It has been stated that husband of the deceased was given beatings, but her husband while appearing in the witness box did not corroborate this statement. Even in the statement before the police, he stated that he was not present at the time of the occurrence. He reached the place of occurrence later on. Even the statement made by the husband of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C., is totally contrary to the aforesaid dying declaration. In these circumstances, learned counsel argued that on such vague and incomplete dying declaration, it is not safe to convict six persons for the offence under Section 302 IPC, without any independent corroboration. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case, there is no evidence, which corroborates the aforesaid dying declaration (Ex.PJ). Rather, the evidence collected by the prosecution goes contrary to the version in the aforesaid dying declaration. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged motive. It has not been explained as to on what account, Rs. 15,000/- were being demanded by all the accused and what was the exact dispute between the parties. It has also been held by the trial court that it is not a case of demand of dowry or harassment of the deceased by the family members of her in-laws, who were living separately and doing separate business. The prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the possibility cannot be ruled out that Jaiwanti might have received burn injuries accidentally and subsequently, with intention to implicate all the members of her in-laws family, she has named all of them, in order to take revenge for not giving her both the rooms in the ancestral house.