MUBARIK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH P.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-appellant Mubarik S/o Shri Husaina has preferred this criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No. 03/2011, where by learned trial court convicted him for offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Deshraj S/o Ghosi submitted a written report on 08.10.2010 at 11:00 AM at Police Station Sikri stating therein about his receiving a telephone call on that date at 6:00 AM to the effect that his daughter Farida has died due to snake biting. Thereafter, he along-with ten-twenty persons of his village reached Khesti and found Farida having bodily injuries mark and that she died due to the injuries sustained due to that beating. It was also stated that Farida was married to Hakam ten years ago and thereafter she was remarried to Mubarik. It was further stated that immediately after marriage, they started to harass Farida on the pretext of dowry. Farida has been killed by her husband Mubarik, father-in-law Husaina S/o Sardar, mother-in-law Maizidi W/o Husaina and her dead body was lying in the house of Mubarik. On the basis of the said report, the police registered First Information Report No. 291/2011, Police Station Sikri. The police commenced investigation thereafter filed challan against accused-appellant Mubarik for offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 304B of the IPC in the court of of Judicial Magistrate, Nagar, and since the matter was triable by the court of Sessions, the matter came to be transferred to the court of Sessions and ultimately it came to be transferred to the trial court. The trial court framed charge against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and in alternative for offence under Section 304B of the IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited documents from Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-28. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 The defence did not produce any witness, however, exhibited four documents from Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-4. After conclusion of the trial, learned trial court, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. After conclusion of the trial, learned trial court, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above.