GOPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there no evidence on record so far as demand of dowry is concerned. Since there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry, the offence under Sec. 304-B I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out against the petitioners more particularly petitioner Gopal Singh.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have urged that there is statement of Mohan Kanwar against accused Marudhar Kanwar, sister of father of the husband of the deceased. She is allowed to have demanded dowry from the mother of the deceased. Marudhar Kanwar accused is alleged to have demanded TV, cooller and gold on the day when she insisted that the deceased be sent at her place. It was resisted by the mother of the deceased on the ground that there was no occasion for sending the deceased to the house of relations like that of the accused Marudhar Kanwar. There was no social occasion on which the deceased was required to be present at the house of accused Marudhar Kanwar and, therefore, the insistence of Marudhar Kanwar for taking the deceased to her house without any occasion after demand of dowry sufficiently constitutes the ingredients of the offence under Sec. 304 B I.P C. What adds to the situation is that the deceased had died within couple of days of taking the deceased to her place which falls within 7 years of the marriage.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has not been able to indicate as to what is the specific evidence against Gopal Singh for offence under Sec. 304B I.P.C. Neither there is any demand of dowry nor Gopal Singh was part of 'he group which escorted deceased to Indroka.