PRAVEEN AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused appellants Praveen and Mst. Sharbati @ Sarita have filed this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 12.4.2004 passed by Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Man Singh Murder Case), Jaipur in sessions case No. 10/2001 whereby the accused appellants have been convicted under Ss. 498A and 306 IPC and they have been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/ - and in default of payment of the fine further simple imprisonment for three months under Sec. 498A IPC and to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of the fine further simple imprisonment for six months under Sec. 306 IPC. Brief facts of the case are that one Raman Kumar Bansal lodged a written report (Ex. P.1) on 31.3.1990 at the Shahpura Police Station wherein it was stated that his sister Manju @ Pushpa was married to Vimal Kumar and in the marriage he spent money even beyond his financial capacity. In spite of this Manju's in -laws abused him for not giving sufficient dowry. After the marriage when he took his sister from Shahpura, she wept a lot and did not eat food for 2 -3 days. On enquiry, she told that the accused appellants and others were subjecting her to harassment in connection with demand of dowry. When he went to Shahpura to bring his sister scooter, television and adequate gold and for the poor quality of the clothes. Whenever he went to Manju's in -laws house they demanded dowry. There were a few deaths in the family of the in -laws of Manju and the accused appellants and others declared that the deaths occurred on account of Manju as she was a witch. On 4.3.1990 he took his sister to his village Mavanda and at that time also the accused appellants and others demanded dowry. On 30.3.1990 the accused appellant Praveen came to Mavanda to take back Manju and at that time as per the custom he offered Rs. 21 to the accused appellant Praveen who threw away the amount and then he had to give Rs. 51/ - to the accused appellant Praveen. According to the report his brother Shankar Lal phoned him in the morning on that day to inform that Manju had died. He suspected that Manju was killed on account of the greed of dowry.

(2.) After investigation a charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura. A supplementary charge sheet was also filed against the accused Vimal Kumar. The case was then committed to Sessions Judge, Jaipur District and ultimately it was transferred to Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Man Singh Murder case) for trial.

(3.) The trial court framed charges against the accused appellants and the co -accused Vimal Kumar Under Ss. 498A, 306 IPC and discharged the accused Ramesh Kumar, Mamta, Kamal, Satish, Mahaveer and Shakuntla from all the offences. The complainant filed a revision petition before the High Court against the order of discharge and for not framing charge under Sec. 304B IPC whereas the accused persons also filed a criminal misc. petition. The High Court disposed of the aforementioned petitions by observing that a charge under Sec. 304B IPC be also framed against the accused appellants and the co -accused Vimal Kumar. Consequently, charge under Sec. 304B IPC was added against the accused appellants and the co -accused Vimal Kumar. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial the prosecution examined 16 witnesses whereas the accused persons examined 5 witnesses in defence. The trial judge acquitted the co -accused Vimal Kumar from all the charges whereas the accused appellants were acquitted under Sec. 304B IPC but they were convicted under Ss. 498A and 306 IPC and they were sentenced as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by this judgment the accused appellants have preferred this appeal.