RAGHUVEER ALIAS PAPPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on behalf of accused- appellants - Raghuveer @ Pappu S/o Chhotey Lal and Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Chhotey Lal, is directed against the judgment and order dated 1. 8. 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, in Sessions Case No. 35/2000, whereby both the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a typed report (Exhibit P-1) was lodged by PW-1 Heera Lal at Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar, alleging therein that on 19. 6. 1997 he got his daughter Bimla married with Raghuveer. Bimla's husband Raghuveer, father-in-law Chhotey Lal, mother-in-law Geeta Devi and sister-in-law (Jethani) Indra Devi have continuously been making demand of dowry after the marriage, but I had no money to satisfy their demand. On 9. 9. 2000 at about 11. 30 AM an information was given to him of his daughter calling him. Thereupon, he, along with other persons, left for the village Narsa (Vaidh-kidhani), on arrival there they saw his daughter Bimla lying dead. Her body was burnt badly. Inquest-report was prepared and thereon their signatures were obtained.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that accused Raghuveer was arrested way back on 19. 9. 2000 and he is in custody till date as he was not granted bail during trial and during pendency of the appeal, therefore, he has already undergone the imprisonment of about six years and five months, therefore, his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. So far as Smt. Geeta Devi is concerned, it is contended that she remained in jail for about 25 days during trial and for a period of three months and 21 days after conviction by the trial court and before suspension of her sentence by the High Court, therefore, she has already undergone the imprisonment of about four months and sixteen days and her sentence may be reduced looking to the nature of prosecution evidence against her and other facts and circumstances of the present case.