UGERSEN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioners were put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. with the allegations that one complainant Jagga Singh PW-1 lodged a report Ex.P-1 at P.S. Kesrisinghpur and stated that he is the resident of 42 GG. He married his daughters with Baldev and Ugersen, residents of Gharsana and gave dowry. After some time of marriage, the in-laws of her daughters started torturing them for bringing less dowry and took them out of the house on which they returned to his house and complained of the matter. Thereafter, he went to the in-laws of his daughters but they refused to keep them back. On this report, the police registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. and started investigation. After due investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C., in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, where the charges of the case were framed. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and closed the evidence. The accused petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the allegations of prosecution witnesses and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the offence and no defence evidence was produced.

(2.) The learned trial Court, after conclusion of the trial found the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and convicted them for the above offence and sentenced them to undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default whereof to further undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved with the above said judgment and order of sentence dated 25.9.1999, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.10.2003. Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgments dated 25.9.1999 and 14.10.2003, the present revision petition has been filed.