JITENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Sec. 374 Crimial P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura (District Jaipur) in Sessions Case No.12/2007 whereby the learned Court below convicted the appellant for offences under Sec. 304-B and 498-A Penal Code and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of ten years for offence under Sec. 304B Penal Code and for simple imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs. 300.00 and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Sec. 498A IPC. It was further ordered that both the aforesaid substantive sentences will run concurrently. It is to be noted that the learned trial court has acquitted accused-Shri Deen Dayal and Smt.Janki alias Jana Devi.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on 28.11.2006 at 1.00 P.M. complainant-Shri Mahavir Prasad PW6, father of the deceased-Smt.Reena, lodged a written report (Ex.P I) before Police Station, Shahpura with the averment that marriage of his daughter was solemnised on 18.11.2005 with the appellant and since from the date of the marriage, in-laws of her daughter treated her cruelty by the reason that the dowry given at the time of marriage was not upto their expectations and whenever she came to her paternal home, she narrated to them the cruel treatment committed upon her. It was further averred in the report that on 27.11.2006 at about 8 A.M. in the morning, the appellant informed him on telephone that the deceased is missing from the house since 6.30 in the morning and upon that, he along with some respectable persons of his village came to the matrimonial home of her daughter and they found her daughter's in-laws behaviour unnatural. It was apprehended in the report that the in-laws of his daughter either concealed her in a secret place or her dead-body has been disposed of after causing her death. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Rapport No. 1724 (Ex.P24) was recorded in the daily-diary (Rojnamcha) maintained by the police station. On the same day i.e. on 28.11.2006, at 7.45 A.M. another Rapport No.1708 (Ex.P23) was lodged by the grand-father-in-law-Shri Suraj Mal about dis-appearance of the deceased and on 29.11.2006, after the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a nearby well, another written report (Ex.P15) was lodged by Shri Mahavir Prasad (PW6) to the effect that his daughter was treated with cruelty by her in-laws on account of dowry not upto their satisfaction given in respect of her marriage. It was also averred in this report that on 27.11.2006, when they came to her matrimonial home search was also made in the aforesaid well but nothing was found in it. On the basis of this subsequent written report, FIR No.651/2006 for offences under Sec. 498-A and 304-B Penal Code was registered and after usual investigation charge-sheet for aforesaid offences was submitted against the appellant as well as the accused acquitted by the Court below. All the three accused were charged for offences under Sec. 498-A and 304-B IPC. In order to prove the same, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant denied the allegation and evidence produced by the prosecution. In defence the acquitted accused Shri Deen Dayal appeared as witness under Sec. 315 Crimial P.C. and some documentary evidence was also produced. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as already stated. Feeling aggrieved, he is before this Court by way of this criminal appeal.

(3.) Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no independent evidence available on record in support of the allegation that demand of dowry was ever made by the appellant or his family members and when such demand was not fulfilled appellant or his family members treated the deceased with cruelty. According to learned counsel in support of the charges framed against the appellant only interested witnesses, who are father, mother and brother of the deceased, have been produced and there are several material contradictions and improvements in their inter-se statements and also from the various reports lodged by them. It was further submitted that in none of the written reports allegation about demand of Maruti Car was made whereas during trial it was stated that from the very beginning demand for Maruti Car was made and when the same was not fulfilled the deceased was treated with cruelty. It was further submitted that there is no evidence on record indicating that immediately before the death of the deceased any demand for dowry was made and when the same was not fulfilled cruelty was committed upon the deceased. It was also submitted that from the evidence available on record it is clear that the deceased accidentally fell into the well and by drowning her death was caused.