Budh Ram @ Pappu & Ors v. State

A.K. SIKRI, J. akb.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: May 21, 2010 Judgment delivered on: June 03, 2010 + CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.887/2009 BUDH RAM @ PAPPU & ORS. ....APPELLANTS Through: Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Advocate with Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Advocate Versus STATE RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, APR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? W AIIT BHARIHOKE. I. 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 18'^'^ August, 2009 in Sessions Case No. 118/08, FIR No. 331/07, P.5. Dabri, in terms of which the appellants Eudh Ram, Hazari Lai and Ms. Kamli have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPG read with Section 34 IPG and Section 302 IPG read with Section 34 IPG. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to Crl.A.No. 887/2009 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. undergo SI for the period of 6 months for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPG and for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPG, all three of them have been sentenced to undergo Rl for the period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo SI for further period of 6 months. 2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that Anita (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and her elder sister Sunita were married on 06^^ March, 2002 to the appellant Hazari La! and his elder brother Murari Lai (PW12) respectively. Appellants Budh Ram and Ms. Kamli ^ are the parents of appellant Hazari Lai. 3. It is the case of prosecution that after the marriage, elder sister Sunita started | living in her matrimonial home but the deceased I. continued to live with her parents till her 'gona' ceremony was performed in the year 2005. It is claimed by the prosecution that immediately after the 'gona' ceremony, the In-laws of Anita including her husband, brother-in-law Yogesh and sister-in-law Seema started harassing and ill-treating her on account of insufficient dowry brought by her. This continued till 'bhai-dhuj' of the year 2006 when the deceased was turned out of her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the deceased continued to live with her parents till about 10 days prior to the fateful day i.e. 19'^'^ April, 2007, when.the deceased sustained burn injuries due to fire. It Is the case of the prosecution that 10 days prior to lO'*^ April, 2007, the in-laws of the deceased visited her parents' house with some members of 'biradri' and persuaded them to send the Page 2 of 23 deceased to her matrimonial home. On the persuasion of 'biradri' people, the parents of the deceased sent her to her matrimonial home. However, there was no change in the attitude of the appellants towards the deceased and they continued to ill-treat her. It is alleged that in the morning of 19^^ April, 2007, the deceased sustained 55% burn injuries and she was admitted in DDU Hospital by her husband and parents-in-law. As per the MLC Ex.PW4/A prepared at the DDU Hospital, the deceased was brought to the hospital by appellant Hazari Lai on April, 2007 at 06:30 a.m. with the alleged history of "burn injuries as told by the Pt. herself and B/B" and she was smelling of kerosene. Intimation about her admission in the hospital was sent by the Duty Constable to the police station, which was recorded as DD N0.14B, P.S. Dabri. Copy of said DD report was entru.sted to ASI Hari Kishan (PW17) for verification. ASI Hari Kishan {PW17) reached DDU Hospital and collected the MLC of the deceased. However, by that time, Anita had been referred to RML Hospital for further treatment. ASI Hari Kishan (PW17) then reached at the spot of occurrence i.e. House iMo.