PREM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by Prem Prakash @ Dhara Singh being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24.08.2006 of the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City/District Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 16/2005, by which he was convicted and sentenced as under,

(2.) Facts giving rise to the appeal are that a written report (Exhibit P5) was submitted by one Boduram to the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahpura, district Jaipur, on 13.09.2004 alleging that his daughter Babli was married with accused Prem Prakash @ Dhara Singh as per Hindu rites in June, 2003. At the time of marriage, he gave enough dowry as per his financial status. His daughter Babli was always harassed by her husband Prem Prakash, mother-in-law, sister-in-law Sita, Babli Devi also complained to the information about such maltreatment. The information visited her in-law's place on 3-4 occasions and requested them not to harass her. He pleaded with them that he, being a poor person with limited means, is unable to satisfy their demand of dowry. When Babli Devi visited the house of information on the occasion of 'raksha-bandhan', she narrated the incident of maltreatment by her in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry. When accused Prem Prakash came to take Babli Devi with, the informant tried his best to let him understand not to harass Babli Devi and thereafter sent Babli Devi with Prem Prakash for her in-laws place. She was givenRs. 1500/- in cash, a pair of gold anklet and tops and clothes. On the way, Prem Prakash started beating Babli Devi near Reengus and took her to the house of his maternal grandmother in village Rampura while quarreling, in the night at 9.00 pm on 11.09.2004. It was there that Prem Prakash possibly put an end to the life of Babli Devi by giving her poison. Action be taken.

(3.) The police thereon registered the case for offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused-appellant under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. The learned trial court, however, apart from framing the charges for those two offences, also alternatively framed the charge for offence under section 302 IPC. the prosecution got 26 witnesses examined and exhibited 17 documents in support of its case, whereas the defence examined two witnesses and exhibited seven documents in support of his case. The learned trial court, after conclusion of tiral, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal.