INDER RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 11-6-92, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and a tine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C.

(2.) The accused-appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that on 9-7-91, at about 6.00 a.m. Smt. Savitri W/o accused Inder Raj, was found dead in a water-pond in village 1- T. K. The information of this incident was given by accused Inder Raj himself at Police Station, Muklawa, on the same day. He also, informed the parents of Smt. Savitri. The proceedings under Section 174, Cr. P.C. were initiated and during the course of inspection of site by the Police, Ram Kumar - the brother of deceased Savitri - reached there and lodged in F.I.R. at 8.00 p.m. According to him the marriage of Savitri was performed with accused Inder Raj five-six years before and after the marriage she came two or three times in her parental house and informed her mother and brother that she is being cruelly treated by her husband, Tapsi Ram (her brother-in-law) and Smt. Maina Devi - the Jethani of Savitri - for bringing more dowry. They used to give beatings to her. About five years before, she was brought to her parental house as she was being inhumanely treated by her in-laws and she remained at her parental house. About three days before the date of the incident when she was taken by her husband Inder Raj, at that time, also, Inder Raj asked his in-laws to make payment of Rs. 5000/- which he required and threatened that if the payment was not made within five-six days then it will result in severe consequences. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 304-B and 406, I.P.C. was registered against the accused-appellant. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined six witnesses and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the appellant demanded dowry immediately before the death of Savitri and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B, I.P.C. have not been established and the appellant, therefore, deserves to be acquitted for this offence. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence on record that Smt. Savitri was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and the ingredients of Section 498-A, I.P.C. are, also, not established and as such the accused-appellant deserves acquittal and the judgement passed by the learned lower Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgement passed by the learned trial Court.