VISHWAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This criminal appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Vishwakumar assailing judgment dated 29.03.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar (for short 'the trial court') whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000.00, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are that a written report (Exhibit P-3) was submitted by Sitaram Sharma (PW.2) on 14.05.2004 to S.H.O., Police Station Khandela alleging that marriage of his daughter Mamta was solemnized with Vishwakumar on 09.05.2004. On 12.05.2004 at 9.00 A.M. two persons from Guman Singh Ki Dhani, Tan Kotdi came and told him that his daughter had disappeared from her in-laws' house and was not traceable since 3.00 A.M. in the morning. He went to the said village with them, where he met the appellant and his father Prabhu Dayal Sharma. He enquired about his daughter but they pleaded ignorance and rather stated that had he given motor cycle and more dowry, he would have certainly known about his daughter. The complainant, Sitaram Sharma (PW.2), lodged a missing person report (Exhibit P-2) at Police Station Khandela. Thereafter, on 14.05.2004, in the morning, he receive information from Guda Police Station to come to Guman Singh Ki Dhani as dead body of his daughter was found lying in the well. Complainant along with several other persons reached Guman Singh Ki Dhani, where the police had taken out dead body of his daughter from the well in the presence of the complainant and other family members. On seeing the dead body, it was clear that dead body of his daughter was thrown into the well after murdering her. The complainant expressed doubts against the appellant and his father Prabhu Dayal and other relatives.

(3.) On receipt of written report (Exhibit P-3), FIR No. 64/2004 (Exhibit P-4) was chalked out for offences under Sections 398-A, 304-B IPC. Doctor conducted post mortem of the deceased. Medical Board opined that cause of death seems to be Cardio Respiratory failure due to Asphyxia, but final opinion would be given after receiving of FSL report. Cause of Asphyxia was due to smothering. The police then started investigation and arrested accused-appellant and his other family members. Upon completion of investigation, challan under Sections 498-A and 304-B Penal Code was filed against the accused-appellant Vishwakumar and investigation against other accused was kept pending under Sec. 173(8) Crimial P.C. Thereafter, on 19.11.2007, challan was filed against other accused namely Prabhu Dayal, Savitri and Laxmi under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A. 120-B, 201 Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial court, however, framed charges against accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of framing charge by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Revision Petition No. 546/2005. Learned Single Judge of this Court while partly allowing the revision petition vide order dated 01.02.2006 quashed and set aside charge framed against the accused-appellant for offence punishable under Sec. 304-B, but sustained the charge framed against him for offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC. Thereafter, amended charge under Sec. 302 Penal Code was framed against the accused-appellant and charges under Sections 302 or 302/34 Penal Code were framed against rest of the accused-persons. The accused-persons abjured the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 17 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. In defence, they examined two witnesses and produced certain documents. The trial court, on conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 29.03.2010 acquitted the co-accused namely Prabhu Dayal, Savitri and Laxmi, but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above.