Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Shri Ajay Purohit, the learned counsel for the State, has supported the judgment of the trial court, and submitted that the present one is a case where there is strong evidence which proves beyond all manner of reasonable doubt, that it is a case of bride-burning by the husband; and the dying declaration of the deceased which has been recorded by the Magistrate concerned provides clinching evidence of the prosecution, & the same is supported by the evidence of Dr. B.C. Temani (PW 3) who has also made a note in the injury report. In addition to the above, there is circumstantial evidence also proving that it was Jagdish, the accused, who poured kerosene oil on Smt. Chand and then lit the fire by match-stick in the dead of the night at about 12.30 a.m. when they were sleeping in the same room in the house.

35. Shri Singh laid great emphasis on the point that it is not a case of dowry death and no reason has been given to show any motive of the murder. We feel that when the offence of burning bride is proved by these two dying declarations, apart from other evidence which we would discuss a little later, it is not necessary for us to go into details of motive for the same.

36. In addition to the above evidence, we find that the facts and circumstances in which the offence was committed also corrobarate the pro-secutory story. Narsingh (PW 1) father of the girl, Smt. Chand, stated that he was informed at 10 AM by the maternal uncle of Jagdish that Smt. Chand has been burnt alive by kerosene oil.

82. We feel that when the society is ever-fast increasingly exhibiting abhorance to roasting of young brides and even then the bride burning cases are suddenly increasing and there is flood of bride burning cases, challenging the judicial consciousness and authority of the judiciary, dignity, honour of womanhood of India, as well as the Slate to provide protection to the innocent young brides from the actual barbaric gruesome crime of husbands who misusing dominating position are taking out the flesh and blood of young brides, the punishment when such crime are proved, should be both, exemplary and deterrent, one such exemplary punishment if given demonstratively in public, can provide protection thousands of young brides, from being burnt alive, by creating fear and terror in the minds of such criminals who are doing torture of young brides for the satisfaction of the sadastic leasure. It would prevent attempt of creating miserable condition either of suicide or homicide, as every one would know that he would not be allowed to go unpunished and one can do it at his or her own peril.

85. We feel that so long as the statute of this land contains the provisions of the death penalty, the present one is one of the most appropriate case where we can do justice to the society by imparting the maximum penalty of capital sentence to the accused appellant Jagdish Khatik for committing the crime of burning his own wife-bride Smt. Chand alive by pouring kerosene oil on her body, for which he has been held guilt of the offence under Section 302, IPC.

86. While awarding the death sentence penalty in another case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Lichmadevi D.B. Cri. Appeal No. 330/78, decided on Nov. 21, 1985, we have directed that ever increasing crimes of bride burning which are creating a challenge to the social justice enshrined in the Constitution, when proved, deserves to be dealt with, without leniency by imposting extreme penalty of death; and to deter other from committing such heinous and gruesome crimes, the execution of punishment should be in a demonstrative manner for making it both, exemplary and deterrent. We have therefore, directed that the death sentence should be executed at a public place in the guage and eye of the public and this can be done at the stadium grounds or Ramlila Ground of Jaipur after giving widespread publicity throught the media of its date time and place. We have while directing the above manner and method of execution also mentioned that this can be subject to there being no prohibition in the jail rules and without creating any law and order problems or problem of security for the Government. We feel that the present one is also a case where the circumstances warrant the same methodology of execution of death penalty, and we order accordingly that looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in order to make this punishment deterrent exemplary, prohibitory the accused-appellant Jagdish s/o Asharam Khatik who is being convicted under Section 302, I PC and sentenced to death, should be hanged by neck till he dies at a public place in Jaipur City provided the State Government Rules and the Jail Manual permits it and there is no law and order problem and security problem.