RAJWATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants Rajwati for offence under Section 302/498A/34 and Mahender for offence under Section 498A/34 Indian Penal Code is under challenge in these appeals.

(2.) HARBANS got married to one Vimlesh on 14.05.1997. According to prosecution, she was harassed for dowry by her mother -in -law Rajwati and father -in -law Mahender and was turned out of her matrimonial home along with her husband Harbans on 16.04.1998. A complaint was made by Vimlesh on 19.04.1998 to SHO Police Station, Gokul Puri who directed her to approach Women Cell. Consequently, on 22.04.1998, another complaint was submitted to Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Crime Branch Cell, Welcome, Delhi. A compromise was entered into inter se parties on 26.05.1998 on the assurance given by the accused persons not to harass Vimlesh and as such Vimlesh prayed for closure of her complaint and returned back to her matrimonial home. On 30.05.1998, she was set on fire at about 12 noon.

(3.) THE defence taken by the appellants was that of denial. The appellant Rajwati took a plea of alibi by stating that she was not at home at the time of incident and had gone to the market to purchase vegetables. It was also stated that the deceased was staying separately with her husband at the first floor of the house. She wanted transfer of the house in her name. Two witnesses were examined in defence.