RAJESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The accused-appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.4.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarhbas, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 42/2004 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC and each has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC.

(3.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on 20.2.2004 the complainant Shri Radheshyam, who is father of deceased, lodged a report at Police Station Kotkasim stating therein that his daughter Rajni was married to appellant Rajesh on 26.2.2001 in accordance with Hindu rites and at the time of marriage sufficient dowry and gifts were given, but in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with the dowry given and since after her marriage they including the present appellants continuously harassed her in connection with demand of dowry. It was also stated in the report that on the birth of second son the accused demanded motorcycle as a gift and on 6.2.2004 the accused quarrelled with his daughter in connection with dowry and in the intervening night of 19.2.2004 and 20.2.2004 the accused killed his daughter by administering poison to her. On the basis of written complaint lodged by the complainant, an FIR No. 23/2004 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC, was registered, apart from present appellants, against Shri Satish and Shri Dhanna, who are father-in-law and uncle-in-law of deceased respectively. After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against all four accused. The learned Trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B, and in the alternative for the offence under Section 302, IPC, and in support of charge the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas in his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. each of the accused denied the allegations and evidence of the prosecution and specifically stated that they have not committed any offence. Opportunity to produce defence evidence was afforded but they did not produce any evidence in defence. The learned Trial Court after evaluating and appreciating the evidence available on record and hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment and order dated 1.4.2006 in the manner as has been stated hereinabove. Hence, the instant appeal. The learned Trial Court acquitted Shri Satish and Dhanna of the charges levelled.