KAILASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, whereby he convicted the appellant for offence under Section 304B, IPC, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' S.I.

(2.) BRIEFLY the relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on 28.5.1994 PW 7 Mool Chand Meena submitted a typed report Ex. D. 1 to PW 14 Mishrilal, SHO, PS Nangal Rajavatan to the effect that about 3 years ago the marriage of his daughter Smt. Rampati was solemnized with appellant Kailash, that for last two years, she was living with her husband in Village Chharera from where she used to come to her parental house off and on and that Rampati gave birth to a male child about a year back, who died. Smt. Rampati was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband Kailash alleging that she did not bring sufficient dowry; that on 20.5.1994, Rampati alongwith Kailash had come to his Village Rahuvas to attend the marriage of his nephew. At that time, Rampati told him that the appellant wanted Rs. 16,000/ - for purchasing a camel cart. On 22.5.1994, she alongwith me appellant returned to her in -laws house situated in Village Chharera. Mool Chand further alleged that in the morning of 24.5.1994, he received information about the death of his daughter Rampati. Thereupon he alongwith others went to Chharera, where he came to know that the dead body of Rampati was cremated hurriedly in the preceding night between 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. He asked Rewarmal, Kailash and Chhotu (father -in -law, husband, and brother -in -law 'Devar' respectively of the deceased) about the cause of death of Rampati. They told that she had died by consuming 'Akra' milk, but later on they gave different versions about the cause of her death. He, therefore, got suspicious and convened Panchayat of villagers, wherein his suspicion about abnormal death of Rampati was reinforced.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. S.R. Surana, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.S. Agrawal, the learned Public Prosecutor at length, and carefully perused the record of the Trial Cou -1.