PRAFOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAFOOL Chand, Kaushalya Devi and Rakesh, the appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Kota, who vide judgment dated January 30, 2002 convicted and sentenced them as under:- U/s. 304b IPC: Each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. U/s. 498a IPC: Each to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 4 Dowry Prohibition Act: Each to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/- in default seven days simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE informant Purshottam Khandelwal (Pw. 8) submitted a written report at Police Station Vigyan Nagar Kota on January 21, 1992 with the averments that his daughter Sangeeta (since deceased) was married to appellant Rakesh on November 27, 1991. He alleged that his daughter was harassed for insufficient dowry. One of his relative informed him on January 20, 1992 about death of his daughter, he reached Kota and came to know that on January 19, 1992 his daughter and her husband went to market where they purchased a betel-leave (Pan), through which poison had been administered to his daughter. On that report case was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kota. Charges under sections 498a, 304b and 120b IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellants claimed innocence. Nine witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) CONSIDERING the definition of dowry their Lordships of Supreme Court in Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam (2004)3 SCC 199, indicated thus:- " The definition of the term "dowry" under Section 2 of the Dowry Act shows that any property or valuable security given or "agreed to be given" either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage "at or before or after the marriage" as a "consideration for the marriage of the said parties" would become "dowry" punishable under the Dowry Act. Property or valuable security so as to constitute "dowry" within the meaning of the Dowry Act must, therefore, be given or demanded "as consideration for the marriage".