ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under S.374, Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 31-3-1980 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotara, whereby he convicted the appellants for offence under S. 306, IPC and sentenced each of them to three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -in default, to further undergo six months R.I.

(2.) Briefly, the relevant facts are that on 1-7-1979, on the written report of Chananamal (P.W.15) alleging the death of his daughter-in-law, Smt. Maya, due to drowning in the water tank , an enquiry under S.174, Cr. P.C. was initiated by the SHO, Barmer. It may be mentioned here that the said report of Chananamal was not filed in the Court along with the challan and it was reported that the same was missing. On 1-7-1979, Rewamal (P.W. 2), the father of the deceased, also submitted a written report to the Collector, Barmer alleging therein that he had married his daughter Maya to appellant Anil Kumar about 1 1/2 months ago and given dowry as per his financial capacity. However, Chananamal, his wife Vidhya Devi and Anil Kumar (appellants) used to cruelly treat Maya. He alleged that on 1-7-1979 they had committed her murder by pressing her neck, putting her to fire and thereafter drowning her in the water tank situated in their house. The District Magistrate, sent the said report to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, who in his turn directed the SHO to take immediate legal action. It appears that Rewamal also submitted a written report Ex. P. 4, which was received by the SHO, P.S. Barmer on 2-7-79, alleging that appellants used to torture his daughter Maya and demanded more dowry; that on 22-6-79, appellant Anil Kumar had told Chandra Prakash in the bus that he was not happy with his wife Maya; that again on 30-6-1979 Anil had told his neighbour Kalumal that his wife Maya was ugly and black in colour and also brought less dowry and as such he intended to kill her and that thereafter he would marry with some other beautiful girl. It was also mentioned in the said report that on 1-7-1979 one Chandan Mal s/o Gyan Mal of Balotara had phoned Roopchand and informed him that his daughter Maya had died after sustaining burn injuries and that in such circumstances, he apprehended that Maya had been murdered by Anil Kumar, his father Chananamal and mother Vidhya Devi.

(3.) Suraj Karan, Dy. S. P. (P.W. 8), who conducted the enquiry under S. 174, Cr. P.C. suspected that it was not a case of suicide but that of committing murder and destroying the evidence thereof. He, therefore jotting down detailed reasons by his order Ex. P. 9 directed the SHO to register a case. Thereupon, case u/ S. 302 and 201, IPC was registered on 5-7-l979.