SURESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALONE, in silence Sunil had to wend on the thorny path of life. Soon after the marriage her husband Suresh, appellant herein, started harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. When demand was not fulfilled, Sunil was ousted from her Sasural. Even in her parental house her life's race was obstructed and she was throttled to death. Appellant was indicted for having committed murder of Sunil before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No. 1, Jhunjhunu. Learned Judge vide judgment dated November 25, 2002 convicted and sentenced him as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for five months. U/s. 498a IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on September 18, 1995 informant Bhoma Ram (Pw. 5) submitted a written report (Ex. P-5) at Police Station Bisau District Jhunjhunu stating therein that his daughter Sunil was married to Suresh on May 14, 1995. Immediately after the marriage the in-laws of Sunil, started harassing her for the demand of sum of Rs. 25,000/-, machine, cooler etc. On September 16, 1995 Suresh came to village Shivdayalpura and had a quarrel for demand of dowry and in the night of September 17, 1995 he killed Sunil and ran away. On the next day morning when Sunil's mother went to the room of Sunil she found her lying dead. On that report, case under sections 498a, 304b and 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jhunjhunu. Charges under sections 302 and 498a IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 21 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

(3.) BHOMA Ram (Pw. 5) in his deposition stated that his daughter Sunil was married to Suresh on May 14, 1995. He was residing in Jhunjhunu for last 15-16 years and indulged in the business of selling milk. Ramavtar and Anchi were his neighbour. Since they were maternal uncle and aunt of Suresh, they took keen interest in performing marriage of Sunil with Suresh. Sunil's younger sister Sunita was also married to Ranjeet, younger brother of Suresh. Soon after the marriage Sunil was harassed in connection with the demand for dowry. She remained in the house of her in- laws for eight days. During that period she was not properly behaved by Suresh. On her return to Peehar, BHOMA Ram kept her with him and got her admitted in School Niradhnu. After three months of the marriage, Suresh made attempt to meet Sunil in the school, but he was not allowed. One day when Sunil was returning from school Suresh threatened her to kill if demanded articles were not given to him. Suresh, his mother Dhudi, Anchi and Ramavtar thereafter came to his house in presence of Harphool and Pyare Lal and demanded dowry articles. On 17th Suresh came to his house and had a quarrel with him. Suresh remained in his house alone with Sunil and escaped silently in the mid night. In the morning Rukmani (Pw. 3), mother of Sunil, found her lying dead. BHOMA Ram was subjected to searching cross examination but his testimony could not be shattered. Testimony of BHOMA Ram gets corroboration from the statement of Rukmani (Pw. 3) and Santosh (Pw. 2 ).