DINESH KUMAR ALIAS LEELU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, on behalf of three appellants, namely, (1) Dinesh Kumar @ Leelu S/o Shri Amarsingh @ Phool, (2) Santra W/o Shri Amarsingh and (3) Amarsingh @ Phool Singh S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 12. 6. 2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Kishangarhbas (Alwar), in Sessions Case No. 61/1999, whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced each appellants as under:- Under Section Sentence of Imprisonment 304-B, IPc To undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment 498-A, IPc To undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this criminal appeal are that on 12. 4. 1999 Sarjitsingh (PW-3), the father of deceased Saroj, lodged a written-report (Exhibit P- 1) at Police Station Tijara, alleging therein that marriage of his daughter Saroj took place on 11. 6. 1998 with Dinesh, Resident of Village Gothda; in the marriage he gave Rs. 51,000/- in cash, and 'diwan' bed, sofa-set, Almira, freeze, cooler, television, sewing machine, 101 utensils, clothes etc. The gold and silver ornaments were also given. However, the bridegroom had shown his displeasure in marriage itself for not giving him Hero-Honda motorcycle in dowry. Thereafter Smt. Santra, the mother-in-law of his daughter, also taunted and disgraced her for not giving motorcycle in the marriage; her daughter told him all these when she came back from her matrimonial home. On her returning back to the matrimonial home, she was assured that he will fulfill their demand on the occasion of birth of child. When Saroj again came back, she told that her in-laws are not agreeable to his proposal of giving motorcycle at the time of birth of child. Her mother-in-law Santra, father-in-law Amar Singh and husband Dinesh bitterly ill- treated Saroj at her matrimonial home. Smt. Saroj had been to her inlaws home for three or four times. Once Smt. Saroj also told him about their demand of cash amount to construct house by saying that, in case she wants to live in her matrimonial home, she will have to bring the cash amount for construction of house. It was further alleged in the written-report that on 24th December, 1998 when his son Srawan Kumar went to Gothda to bring her, he was told by her in-laws that unless their demand is fulfilled, they need not come there. They even did not offer food to Srawan and Saroj and ousted them therefrom without providing food. It was further stated in the written-report that on 7. 4. 1999 Dinesh (husband), accompanied by his friend, came and they took Saroj with them. His daughter was weeping and telling him that she has every apprehension of her life. On 8th April, 1999 his son Srawan Kumar had gone to Kakrali to meet her paternal aunt (Bhua) and to bring tractor for crop; he came back through village Gothda meeting with Saroj, who told him that she has been beaten bitterly by her in-laws and even has not been provided food. She also shown him number of injuries on her person. She requested my son to send me there. He planned to go on 11. 4. 1999 i. e. holiday being Sunday. However, on 10. 4. 1999 itself he received a news from his brotherin- law Ratiram that Saroj has been set on fire by her in-laws and she has been killed. Thereafter they went to village Gothda and saw the dead body of Saroj badly burnt. Upon seeing her dead-body, he suffered mental shock and could not lodge the report immediately. He prayed for legal action in the matter immediately.

(3.) THE trial court, after appreciating the evidence on the record as well as arguments of both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as mentioned above.