KHEM CHAND ALIAS PAPPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal by appellants Khem Chand @ Pappu and Smt. Prabhati arises out of the judgment and order dated 11. 10. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, thereby convicting the appellants for offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

(2.) ON 26. 7. 98 at 11. 10 AM complainant Moti Ram submitted a typed report, Ex. P3 at Police Station Sadar, Sikar alleging therein that he had performed the marriage of his neice Santosh daughter of his brother late Birma Ram. According t him his brother Birma Ram was not alive at the time of marriage and that he had given dowry beyond his capacity but still the members of her in laws family were not satisfied with the dowry and started harassing her mentally and physically. Whenever she visited her parents house, she complained of torturing, belabouring and not providing food on account of less dowry given at the time of marriage and that complaint, his brother and other family members pacified her that every thing would be all right by afflux of time. ON some occasions, the compliant and his family members gave 5 and 10 thousand rupees to her in laws with a view that good sense will prevail and they would not torture her. In this respect, the villagers and members of her maternal side arranged meetings of their society and tried to make the members of her in laws' family understand, but of no avail. According to the report, about six days back i. e. , on 21. 7. 98, her father-in-law came there to bring her back. ON that occasion she asked the complainant not to send her as they would kill her. She had stayed at village Chelasi and Gokulpura for about 2-2 & 1/2 months prior to 21. 7. 98. ON 21. 7. 98 her father in law assured that she would not be tortured in future. At that time, Bhagirath Singh, Ramdeva Ram, Pitha Ram, Moti Ram and other family members were present there. Believing on the assurance, they sent Santosh with her father in law. She had a daughter. The complainant then alleged that Pappu, Dhuda Ram, Prabhati, Birbal and Gordhan of her in laws family caused her death and threw her into the well and that they abated her to commit suicide. According to the complainant they were not informed of the death of Santosh and they were informed of the death of Santosh and they were informed by two persons of village Khakholi.

(3.) IN assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the Trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant under Section 304-B IPC. Referring the prosecution evidence, learned counsel argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. According to him, there are major contradictions in the statement of prosecution witness which go to the route of the case. The Trial Court ought not to have placed reliance on the statements of witnesses which are full of contradictions, in arriving at a conclusion of guilt against the appellants under Section 304-B IPC.