GOVIND NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated December 22, 2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, whereby the appellants, six in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:- Govind Narain & Hari Narain: U/s. 302 IPC : Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. U/s. 498a IPC: Both to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Smt. Ram Janki, Smt. Indra Devi, Smt. Santosh and Ganesh Narain : U/s. 498a IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on September 20, 2001 at 5. 35 PM informant Om Prakash submitted written report (Ex. P-65) at police station Ramganj Jaipur to the effect that his niece Vinita was married to Govind. Sometimes after the marriage her in-laws started pestering her for want of dowry. His niece, on telephone used to divulge to her parents that her in-laws maltreating her for want of dowry, she was not given proper food and constant threats were given to her. On September 18, 2001 the informant along with parents of Vinita went to her marital house, but her in-laws stated that they would send her on next day. On September 20, 2001, the informant by way of telephonic call received the information that Vinita had been burnt. The informant and others rushed to her marital house and thereafter to SMS hospital Jaipur where Vinita disclosed that she was burnt by her in-laws. In the course of treatment Vinita succumbed to burn injuries. On that report a case was registered under Sections 498a and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were 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. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Charges under sections 498a and 304b IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 24 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Two witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. We have heard the submissions advanced before us and scanned the material on record.

(3.) FKKUSNKJ dks fouhrk us ;g crk;k fd og [kqn ty xbz Fkha Fkkusnkjth us ;g dgk Fkk fd vxj rw ,sls cksysxh rks rsjs f[kykq eqdnek cuk nwaxk rw rks bu dkxtksa ij glrk{kj dja** Manbhar was not declared hostile by the prosecution.