MAHESH ALIAS RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 9. 01. 2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he was convicted for offences under Section 302 and 498-A IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof.

(2.) THE prosecution story is that on 24. 8. 99 Jagdish (PW. 7) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 16) wherein he claimed that his daughter, Pushpa was married, in the appellant about 17-18 years ago. At the time of marriage he had given the dowry according to his capacity and at the time of `gauna' he gave about Rs. 50,000/- and clothes, utensils and ornaments etc. to his daughter and the appellant. After the marriage, his daughter started living with her inlaws at Kotputli. However, neither the appellant, nor the in-laws were happy with the dowry. THErefore, they started harrasing his daughter for more dowry. THEy verbally abused her and physically assaulted her. Whenever he went to see his daughter. Pushpa would always complain about the in-laws and her husband demanding more dowry. He further alleged that whenever the appellant used to come to a his house, he demanded dowry and cash. His daughter also told him that the in-laws were forcing her to divorce the appellant so that he could re-marry. He further claimed that on 15. 8. 99 his nephew took Pushpa from her paternal home and dropped her at her in-laws'. His nephew also requested the appellant not to beat Pushpa or to make any further dowry demands. He also claimed that in the morning he was informed by Mahaveer Prasad, who is Pushpa's elder brother-in-law (Jeth), that Mahesh and others have killed Pushpa and thrown her body into the gutter.

(3.) MAHAVEER (PW. 3) is the star witness of the prosecution. In his examination in chief he clearly states that the appellant is his elder uncle's son and both belong to Kotputli. He admits the fact that the appellant and he are not on talking terms and in fact they do not visit each other at all. He further states that on 23. 8. 99 Mahesh had comes to his shop and told him that his wife is not keeping well and needs to be taken to Kotputli. According to him Mahesh's wife was sitting in the back of the jeep and she had a veil on her face. In his cross-examination he tells us that while they were driving to Kotputli, Mahesh told him that his wife has died and yet he neither stopped the jeep nor looked at his wife, who was sitting in the back. According to him, the wife was sitting throughout the journey. He claims that when the wife's body was taken out he was present at Kotputli, yet, he does not know whether she was dead or alive at that time.