STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAJE KHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 5.2.1996 passed by the Distt. and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.34/94 (231/94), whereby, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents from the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that Shah Mohd. resident of village Kikarwali, Tehsil Sangaria, Distt. Hanumangarh submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction on 4.4.1994 stating therein that his elder daughter Sardara was married to Liyakat five years and six months back and at the time of her marriage, he gave five tollas of gold, one kilogram of silver, one buffalo, clothes and utensils etc. in dowry. It is stated that at the time of marriage, Liyakat, Hakam, Saddak and Ranjhe Khan had shown displeasure while saying that the dowry is less and they had demanded motorcycle and Rs.20,000/- cash. It is stated that the complainant asked them that at present he is not having that much money and, therefore, he would give more dowry after sometime. It is alleged that from time to time, the accused persons demanded dowry and on three occasions, they had thrown out his daughter from their house and for that a meeting (Panchayat) was held in the presence of Panchas namely Fateh Deen, Haji Mohd. Sadik and Ammen etc. and at that time, the accused persons agreed that they would not demand for the dowry. It is stated that thereafter the complainant got his younger daughter Arsan married to the brother of Liyakat son of Ranjhe Khan and at the time of marriage, he also gave certain dowry items including gold and silver ornaments and at that time also, the accused persons had shown displeasure while saying that the dowry is less and had also demanded Rs.20,000/- and a motorcycle. It is stated that at that time also, several villagers asked the accused persons that the dowry would be given to them after sometime. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that after 5-6 months, his younger daughter Arsan was thrown out of her in-laws house and for that purpose, a meeting was again held. It is alleged that the complainant's younger daughter Arsan told her father that her in-laws used to harass her and her elder sister Sardara for demand of dowry. It is further alleged that in the meeting held in relation to Arsan, the accused persons refused to keep her at her in-laws house, however, on the assurance given by her elder daughter Sardara, they sent Arsan to her in-laws house. It is further stated in the complaint that on 2.4.1994, the complainant went to the in-laws house of his daughters, where he found that the accused persons are beating his daughter Sardara and when the complainant tried to stop them, they told him that they will do like this until their demands does not met. It is further alleged in the complaint that today on 4.4.1994, at about 6 am, the complainant was informed that his daughter has been killed by the accused persons. After receiving this information, when he reached at the in-laws house of his daughter Sardara, he saw her dead body and her clothes were smeared with blood. It is prayed in the complaint that the accused persons had killed his daughter for dowry and, therefore, action be taken against them.

(3.) On receiving the report, the police has lodged an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. against the persons named in the FIR and after investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offence. During the course of trial, the prosecution has produced as many as 12 witnesses and the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court after considering the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution has acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. Hence, this appeal.