STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 15.11.2006 a written report was submitted by Suresh son of Ram Swaroop at the police station Khetri stating therein that his sister Krishna Kumari was married to respondent Krishan Kumar on 11.5.2006. His sister used to tell that her in-laws are demanding a motor cycle in dowry and for demand of dowry the father-in-law of his sister and aunt of father-in-law namely Smt. Bhateri Devi used to harass her and they have murdered his sister for want of dowry. The police on the basis of this report registered a case under Sections 304B and 498A Penal Code vide FIR No.375/2006 which ultimately resulted into filing of challan against accused respondents Krishan Kumar and Banwari Lal. The prosecution relied upon 12 witnesses in support of its case. The accused persons denied the allegations in their statements under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. and stated that Krishna Kumari wanted to go to her parental house on account of some Gangoj (holy ceremony) and the ladies of the house refused to allow her to go but she left the house. It was also mentioned that she was having illicit relation with one Ram Karan and there was no demand of dowry by the inlaws. Three witnesses were examined in defence.

(2.) The learned trial court after hearing both the sides and examining the material and evidence available on record came to the conclusion that there was no demand of dowry by the in-laws. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the police during investigation and given by them in the court during trial. The defence version goes contrary to the prosecution witnesses and reveals that there was neither any demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased nor there was any harassment with her on account of demand of dowry. Even the real sister of the deceased namely Urmila PW.8 who was married to the brother of Krishan Kumar has completely denied the fact of demand of dowry or harassment or torture. On the basis of evaluation of the evidence the learned trial court by the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2007 acquitted the accused respondents of all the charges giving benefit of doubt to the accused respondent. Against this judgment, the State has filed this leave to appeal.

(3.) Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondents.