HARI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, by this appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Jodhpur dated 16.10.2002, passed in Session Case No. 64/2002, convicting him for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B LP.C., and sentencing him to three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one month's R.I., and imprisonment for life respectively. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The necessary facts are, that on 7.2.2002 Pukhraj submitted a written report at Police Station Luni, to the effect, that his daughter Manju was married with the appellant some 7-8 months ago. Since after one month of the marriage the accused started harassing her for dowry, and started treating her with cruelty, while sufficient dowry was already given, looking to the informant's capacity. It was alleged that some 15 days ago his daughter came to the house, and told, that her husband is harassing her, and gives physical beating. However, informant advanced good counseling, and sent her back to in-laws house, assuring her that he will talk to them. It is further alleged that in the morning (on the day of information) at 8.30 one Omji S/o Mohanlal and Mishrilal S/o Kaluram of Village Salavas came to his village Guda, and informed, that his daughter has died, thereupon he telephoned to his brothers at Jodhpur to reach there, and he also went to Salavas. By the time he reached his brother also reached, and on asking to the villagers it was told that she has died by drowning in the water tank, while on his asking the appellant as to how she died, no satisfactory answer was given. However, on further enquiries by him and the villagers, the appellant informed, that in the night there was some dialogue about divorce, and there was scuffle between the two. It was thus apprehended, that she has been killed and thrown in the water tank. It was also alleged that earlier also beating was given any number of times to her, for which she was complaining to the parents. On this report a case was registered sunder Sections 498A and 304B, and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed, and then was transferred to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed charges for the aforesaid offences. Which were denied by the appellant.

(3.) During trial the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, and tendered in evidence some 26 documents, and 16 articles. Then, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who took the stand of denial, and ignorance. However, he examined two witnesses in defence. On completion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.