RADHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Radha Devi, appellant herein, along with Shyam Sunder Soni and Chandra Prakash Soni were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Beawar District Ajmer, who vide judgment dated July 30, 2005, while acquitting co -accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: -

(2.) The complainant has also preferred the appeal under Sec. 454 CrPC bearing No. 661/2006 against the order dated September 29, 2005 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Beawar whereby the application of the complainant filed under Sec. 452 CrPC claiming seized goods was dismissed.

(3.) It is the prosecution case that the informant Mahesh Chand Soni (P.W. 4) submitted a written report (Ex. P -1) at Police Station Beawar on May 5, 2003 with the averments that his daughter Pushpa Soni (since deceased) was married to Dr. Shyam Sunder Soni on February 10, 2000. Soon after her marriage Pushpa was harassed by her husband and in -laws for the demand of car, AC, Jewellery and more money. On April 25, 2003 the informant received information about death of Pushpa. On asking from in -laws they informed that Pushpa died because of heart -attack. But on seeing the condition of dead body it was found that there were marks on her neck. On that report case under Sec. 304B IPC 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, Beware District Ajmer. Charges under Ss. 498A and 304B IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and one court witness. In the explanation under Sec. 313 CrPC, the appellant claimed innocence. Sixteen witnesses in defence were examined and 223 documents were exhibited. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions, while acquitting co -accused persons convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.