SHYAMBIHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant challenging the judgment dated 22.02.2011, passed by the Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Kota in Session Case No.51/2006, whereby the accused-respondent No.2, Suresh Kumar, has been acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 304B IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Kota on 5-6-2006 with regard to an incident of 27-5-2006 by Shyambihari (Pw.2) stating therein that the marriage of his daughter, Radha Bai, was solemnized with the accused-respondent No.2, Suresh Kumar on 15-5-2005 during a community marriage ceremony at Seeswali according to Hindu rites. It was stated that at the time of marriage, various ornaments and articles, as detailed in the report, were given in dowry. It was also alleged that after the marriage of his daughter she used to state when visiting her maternal home that her sister-in-law (Jethani) Savitri Bai used to have trances and while under a trance received divine messages that for the peace and well being of the family human sacrifice was required. According to complainant the deceased told her mother that the human sacrifice sought was that of 5-6 months yet unborn child in Radhabai's womb. It was alleged that owing to apprehension about safety of her unborn child, Radhabai was apprehensive of returning to her matrimonial home, but was persuaded to go by her parents. It was stated that on 13-3-2006 the marriage of his younger daughter Rukmani was solemnised in community marriage. It was submitted that the in-laws of Radhabai were piqued at Radhabai being given a lesser dowry than the dowry given to her younger sister Rukmani. It was stated that on 27-5-2006 the complainant received a telephone call informing him that his daughter Radhabai had died. The complainant then rushed to Radhabai's matrimonial home and was told on reaching that she had committed suicide by hanging herself with her saree.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the complainant, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondent and perused the impugned judgment dated 22-2-2011.