SHER SINGH, SON OF NAWAB SINGH BY CASTE BANJARA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHERIA LODHA, POLICE STATION ROOPWAS, DISTRICT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This appeal seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 16.07.2009 passed by Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, (RHJS), Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur Camp Bayana (for short 'the trial court') whereby the accused-appellant Sher Singh was convicted for offence under Sec. 304-B Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The accused-appellant has further been convicted for offence under Sec. 498-A Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default whereof he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month. He has also been convicted for offence under Sec. 201/511 Penal Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200.00, in default whereof, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.

(2.) Skeletal facts leading to this appeal are that one Bheema submitted a written report (Exhibit P-2) to S.H.O., Police Station Roopwas, Bharatpur at 9.30 P.M. on 30.12.2007 alleging that his daughter Mithlesh, aged about 22-23 years, was married to Sher Singh son of Nawab Singh by caste Banjara resident of Lodha Kheriya about three years ago. Her in-laws started harassing her on demand of dowry ever since the marriage. Nawab Singh, Vijay Singh, Sher Singh, Nahar Singh had set her on fire about two years ago due to which she sustained serious burn injuries. The complainant by spending lot of money got her daughter treated. Her in-laws used to demand motor cycle and cash in dowry, as they wanted to repay their loan. The complainant was not in a position to meet their demand. His daughter was staying with him for the last about four months and returned back to in-laws house only one month ago. Dantaram Banjara of village Kheriya Lodha telephonically informed the complainant's son Himmat that Mithlesh and Sher Singh were absent from their house since 29.12.2007 and enquired whether Mithlesh had come to complainant's house. Thereupon, his son Himmat replied that Mithlesh had not come to their village. His son Himmat and Rajaram went to village Kheriya Lodha in the morning and learnt that Mithlesh has been murdered. His son told the complainant about this on telephone, who also reached village Kheriya Lodha with certain other villagers and informed the police. On enquiry by the police, brother of the appellant, Vijay Singh told the informant and those present there that dead body of Mithlesh was lying in the jungle of Ibrahimpur. When they reached said jungle with Vijay Singh, dead body of Mithlesh was found lying there with injuries on left side of the neck and other parts of the body. Complainant alleged that Sher Singh and his brother and father have murdered his daughter for inability of the complainant in satisfying their demand of dowry and threw away her body in the jungle.

(3.) The police on the basis of aforesaid report, registered regular FIR No. 602/2007 (Exhibit P-3) for offences under Sections 304-B/201 Penal Code and commenced investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant Sher Singh, his father Nawab Singh and brother Vijay Singh. The trial court framed charges against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC, which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellant and other accused were examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. No witness was produced by the appellant in his defence. The trial court, on conclusion of the trial, acquitted co-accused Vijay Singh of the charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A Penal Code but convicted him for offence under Sec. 201/511 Penal Code and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200.00, in default whereof he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The trial court vide aforesaid judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated herein above.