RAMKUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by Ramkumar @ Ramveer (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') against the judgment dtd. 3/9/2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge No.2, Alwar in Sessions Case No.42/2014, convicting the accused-appellant under Sec. 302 IPC. Vide order of even date, the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000.00. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) The facts as set up by the prosecution are that on complaint of Kamal, brother of Geeta (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') an FIR No.325 dtd. 29/12/2013 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar under Ss. 304B and 498A IPC. As per the complainant, Geeta (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was married to the appellant few years back and there are two children out of the wedlock. The couple was staying on rent in Mehtab Singh Ka Nohra, Alwar. The elder sister of the complainant Babita had taken room on first floor on rent in the same premises. Allegations are that the appellant tortured the deceased and demanded dowry. On 29/12/2013 at about 8.30 A.M the deceased was tortured for dowry and killed by giving a griddle (Tawa) blow on her head. The charge-sheet against the appellant was filed u/s 498A, 304B and 302 IPC and after supplying copy of challan the trial was committed to Sessions Court. Charges were framed u/s 498A, 304B and in alternate u/s 302 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and exhibited seventeen documents to prove the case. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant denied the allegations and examined himself in defence. The trial Court after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence concluded that the prosecution failed to prove second marriage of the deceased with the appellant and the ingredients of dowry death for invoking Ss. 304B and 498A IPC but the appellant was convicted u/s 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argues that deposition of PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi was not reliable. The deposition of PW-9 Babita, PW-16 Surendra Singh (Investigating Officer) and the site plan (Ex.P.3) are relied upon to contend that apart from the door there was no entry to the room of Babita, the windows had grills and it was not proved that PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Somvanshi entered the room after breaking the grill. Submission is that recovery of griddle (Tawa) at the instance of the appellant is not an evidence of it having been used in the incident by the appellant.