DILIP ALIAS BHOLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th of July 2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur, in Sessions Case No. 300/2001, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, `ipc'), to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 9th April 2000 PW-1 Deep Singh lodged a written report (Exhibit P-1) at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, wherein it was alleged that his daughter Rekha was married with Bhola @ Dilip Singh about three years ago. Bhola @ Dilip Singh started harassing her daughter Rekha by saying that her father has not given dowry. He used to tell her daughter to bring dowry in cash as well as scooter. it was further alleged that his daughter was ousted from the house and she remained with him for about four months but she was taken back by Bhola @ Dilip Singh about twenty days ago and he came to know that today she has been killed. She was set at fire. On the basis of this information, a case under Section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, who, in turn, transferred it for disposal to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the accused appellant further contended that there is lack of evidence in respect of demand of dowry made by the accused from the deceased. He referred the statements of PW-1 Deep Singh, PW-2 Dhan Devi, PW-4 Ram Khiladi, PW-5 Lal Kumar and PW-7 Anil Kumar, in this connection. PW-4 Ram Khiladi stated that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded soon before the death of Rekha but before it, no demand of cash or scooter was made at any point of time. PW-7 Anil Kumar stated tat accused appellant Bhola @ Dilip Singh demanded Rs. 20,000/- and told them that he has to repay some loan. On the basis of these statements the learned counsel for the accused appellant contended that there was no demand of dowry in cash or scooter but even if the statements of prosecution witnesses are believed to be true then it was a demand of money for repayment of some loan amount.