MISHRI MAL AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-10-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 48/2003, whereby the trial Court convicted both the appellants for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000.00, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 304-B, IPC; and three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000.00, in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, both the appellants have filed the instant appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal, are that at 7:30 AM on 12-11-2001, PW 13 Satya Narain lodged a written report EX.D/1 with Police Station, Swaroopganj alleging therein that his daughter Seema married to appellant No.2 Deepak Kumar on 28-5-2001 and she used to reside at her in-law's house with her husband appellant No.2, father-in-law appellant No.1, brother-in-law Sanjay Kumar and maid-servant PW 9 Karishma. It was alleged that his daughter was harassed by her father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law for dowry. On this report, the police ensued investigation, prepared the site inspection note, Panchnama-A-Haal-Lash, got the post-mortem conducted, took the photographs of the deadbody, arrested the appellants, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Sec. 161 of the Code and thereafter filed Challan against both the appellants for the offences under Sec. 498-A and 304-B, IPC. The trial Court framed charges for these offences against both the appellants, to which both the appellants denied. The prosecution adduced evidence by producing as many as 28 witnesses and the documents EX.P/1 to EX.P/36. Both the appellants made statements under Sec. 313 of the Code and denied the allegation and got exhibited the documents EX.D/1 to EX.D/5. The trial Court, vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced both the appellants as noticed above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also the counsel appearing for the complainant.