RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASHTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated July 31, 2004 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2001 whereby accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced for Sections 498-A to suffer three years SI and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month, for Section 304-B IPC to suffer 10 years SI and for Section 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act, SI to suffer one year SI with fine of Rs. 500, each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that informant Chhaju Lal submitted a written report at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur on July 17, 1994. In the report it was alleged that his younger sister namely Raja Devi was married in 1989 to one Hanuman Sahai, resident of Shiv Colony, Jaipur. The marriage was solemnized with ostentation and Raja Devi was sent away to her marital house with festivity. After the marriage, when informant's sister, use to visit her parental house, for a period of about two years, she used to complained that her in-laws were subjecting her to cruelty for want of dowry. She used to inform her parents' side that the demand was raised by her husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law and maternal uncle-in-law namely, Lal Chand. After two years the in-laws of Raja Devi, left her at her parents' house and never took her back as also kept on making dowry demands. It was further revealed in the report that 8-9 months back, with the efforts of all the sundry, Raja Devi was sent back to her marital house. They used to often see her there. About 15 days back informant's father had visited Raja Devi's in laws' house, where Raja Devi had cried a lot before her father and had also divulged to him that she was being petered by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-laws and maternal uncle-in-law namely Lal Chand. She further revealed to her father that she was being assaulted by them and they were also issuing threats to kill her. Thereafter father of the deceased consoled the latter and went away by i stating that on 14.7.1994 her brother would come to fetch her as there was a function in their house. On 13.7.1994 another brother of the deceased namely Ghasi went to fetch her but in laws of the deceased did not allow her to go. It was then stated in the report that on 16.7.1994 Raja Devi died under suspicious circumstances. Information about it was sent across to her parents' side after about 12 hours. It was lastly stated in the report that informant had strong suspicion that Raja Devi's mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and maternal uncle-in-law namely Lal Chand had conspired to kill Raja Devi. On the basis of the above mentioned report a formal case was registered as FIR No. 283 of 1994 at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. After investigation, the police filed challan under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against and accused-appellants before the concerned Magistrate. The case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur for trial. After hearing submissions of rival sides, charges came to be framed against the accused-appellants for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused-appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 19 witnesses. Statements of accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused-appellants pleaded false implication and adopted the plea of denial. In defence five witnesses were examined. The trial Court after hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants vide judgment dated July 31, 2004 as mentioned above.

(3.) Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that in a trial for offence under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the four necessary ingredients before the provisions of Section 113-B of Evidence Act may be attracted. The ingredients are as under: