RAJU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The abovenamed accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and order dated 22-11-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 68/2001 by which while acquitting the accused appellants for the offence under Section 201, IPC, he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 498A, IPC and 304-B, IPC and sentenced them in the following manner <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2237_CRLJ_2004Html1.htm</FRM> The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows : On 19-6-2000 at about 7.30 p.m., PW5 Bhiyaram lodged a written report Ex. P/6 with the Police Station Mathanis District Jodhpur before PW13 Bhanwar Singh, SHO of that Police Station stating inter alia that his daughter Mohini (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was married three months back with Raju Ram (accused appellant No. 1). It was further stated in the report that at the time of marriage, demand of dowry was made on behalf of the accused appellants and the same was fulfilled by PW5 Bhiyaram, but the accused appellants were not satisfied and after the marriage, demand of dowry was being made continuously by the accused appellants, but since his financial condition was not good, PW5 Bhiyaram could not satisfy their demand and because of this fact, they used to torture and harrass deceased. It was further stated in the report that on 19-6-2000, Chunaram informed PWS Bhiyaram that the condition of the deceased, who was at that time in the house of her in- laws", was not good, therefore, PW5 Bhiyaram sent Ishwar Ram (PW2), Sajanram (PW1), Lakharam (PW4), Megharam (PW6), Bannaram, Kesuram Narainram, Damaram and Jaguram to the house of her in-laws' where they found the dead body of the deceased half burnt on the back side of the house and on being asked by these persons how it was happened, the accused appellants told them that mistake had been committed by them and they had killed the deceased. Thereafter, the above persons in-, formed PW5 Bhiyaram about the said incident and then, PW5 Bhiyaram lodged the report Ex. P/6 and in that report, in the police remarks, it was further stated by PW5 Bhiyaram that whenever deceased used to come to his house, she used to tell that in case dowry was not given, she would be killed. On this report Ex. P/6, police chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/29 and started investigation. During investigation, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by the Medical Board at Health Centre, Mathania and the post mortem report is Ex. P/33 and in the opinion of the Medical Board, cause of death could not be ascertained, but they preserved the viscera, which was sent for chemical examination and the chemical examination report is Ex. P/35 and after seeing the chemical examination report Ex. P/35, PW16 Narnayak Bhati, who was one of the members of the Medical Board, opined that deceased possibly died because of taking Organophosphorous Insecticide. The accused appellants Raju Ram, Chenaram, Jagdlsh and Neni Devi were arrested on 20-6-2000 through arrest memos Ex. P/23, Ex. P/24, Ex. P/25 and Ex. P/28 respectively. After usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 201, IPC against the accused appellants in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur on 11-10-2000 framed charges for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 201, IPC against the accused appellants. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under Section 313, Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, two witnesses were examined. After conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur through his judgment and order dated 22-11-2001 acquitted the accused appellants of the charge for the offence under Section 201, IPC, but convicted them for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC and sentenced them in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia :

(3.) In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that in this case, there is categorical evidence of the prosecution witnesses that before death of the deceased, she remained in the house of the accused-appellants continuously for three months and during that period, her parents did not meet her and therefore, there is no evidence in this case that soon before her death, demand of dowry, as found proved by the learned trial Judge, was ever made by the accused appellants. Hence, the basic ingredient that deceased was subjected to cruelty for and in connection with the demand of dowry has not been established and proved and in view of this, the findings of the learned trial Judge convicting the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 304B, IPC cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.