VIJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Vijendra Kumar has filed this appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.7.2003 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Doongarpur in Sessions Case No. 26/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that an application Ex. P/1 was filed by P.W.1 Bhagwatilal, father of deceased Neetu, before the SDM, Doongarpur, stating therein that he had married his daughter Neetu with accused Vijendrakumar about three months back in village Bankoda as per the traditions of their casts on 1.6.2001 and out of the said period of three months she along with her husband stayed at his house for a week's time and after about one month of the marriage demand of Rs. 50,000 as dowry was made giving time of one month. It was further stated by said applicant P.W.I Bhagwatilal in the application that as he was a low paid employee he could not fulfil that demand and due to that his daughter was given beatings by accused after taking heavy liquor and she was tortured. His daughter told him many times about this on phone. The accused also threatened him on telephone of one neighbour Gulab Singh that if he (applicant) in his absence went to accused's house, he would break the legs of applicant and his daughter would be killed. Before three -four days of the incident, the accused, his mother and Neetu came to Motagaon and told his wife that they will shift to Ahmedabad and took away the jewellery of his daughter and after four days of that his daughter was burnt by pouring kerosene on her. That day was his mother's 'Chha Mahi Day' (an occasion that comes after six months of someone's death) and the accused had phoned him that he would see that his daughter meets with the applicant at 4 o'clock and at about 5 o'clock he burnt her after pouring kerosene on her.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties on framing of charge on 4.3.2002, the charges under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC were framed and read over to him. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.