MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Manoj Kumar has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6. 5. 2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in sessions case No. 148/2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and he has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of the fine further imprisonment for three months under Section 498-A IPC and to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine further imprisonment for six months under Section 304-B IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 8. 4. 99 one Ramesh Chand Soni lodged a report at the police station Sodala, Jaipur stating therein that his daughter Raj Kumari was married to the petitioner Manoj Kumar in May, 1997. Soon after the marriage her in-laws harassed her in connection with demand of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry. On 6. 4. 99, the appellant Manoj Kumar came to Agra and demanded Rs. 10,000/ -. When he expressed his inability to give the above amount the appellant took Raj Kumari with him and on the very next day i. e. on 7. 4. 99 he received information that his daughter Raj Kumari was dead. It was alleged in the report that the appellant, his father, his mother and his brother killed Raj Kumari in pursuance of a conspiracy. On the basis of the above report the police station Sodala, Jaipur registered a case No. 108/99 and after usual investigation filed a charge sheet against the appellant and three others under Sections 498-A, 304b IPC in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. THE case was ultimately transferred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 framed charges against the appellant and three others under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC. THE appellant and the co-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. THE prosecution in order to establish its case examined 12 witnesses and exhibited documents from Ex. P1 to Ex. P13. THE appellant and the co- accused examined four witnesses in defence. One of the accused Anar Devi, mother of the appellant, died during trial and, therefore, the case against her was dropped by order of the trial Court dated 19. 5. 2000. After hearing the parties learned trial Court by judgment dated 6. 5. 2003 acquitted the accused Tara Chand and Vikram but convicted the appellant under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and sentenced him in the manner as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by the judgment the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) KAMLA Devi PW. 2 is the mother of the deceased. She has deposed that the appellant and his parents and brother asked the deceased to bring Rs. 10,000/ -. In cross-examination she has stated that she does not know as to why the accused wanted the deceased to bring Rs. 10,000/ -. Ramesh Chand PW. 4 is the father and Ashok Kumar PW. 6 is the brother of the deceased. They have stated that on 6. 4. 99 the appellant came to Agra and made a demand of Rs. 10,000/- and when they expressed their inability to meet the demand the appellant took Raj Kumari with him and on the next date they received the information that Raj Kumari had expired. They have stated that whenever the deceased Raj Kumari came she told that the accused harassed her and beat her in connection with the demand of Rs. 10,000/ -. (Ashok Kumar PW. 6 says that the demand was of Rs. 10,000-15,000 ). In cross examination both the witnesses have stated that the appellant demanded the above amount for some trade or business. Ramesh Chand PW. 4 has admitted that the accused did not make any demand at the time of marriage. Lalla Singh PW. 1 and Laxman Singh PW. 5 also refer to the demand of Rs. 10,000/ -.