MOHAMMAD HAROON Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Mohd. Haroon was tried for offences under Ss. 306 and 498-A, IPC along with Abdul Hakim, Smt. Kaniza and Abdul Manan by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur who convicted appellant for both the offences and sentenced him to six years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for offence under S. 306, IPC and two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment for offence under S. 498-A, IPC. Other co-accused persons were acquitted. Appellant preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentences passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 6-1-1998 Smt. Rukhsana lodged a report at police station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur that her daughter Rehana was married to appellant and her 'muklawa' was performed a year ago. Ever since then she was being harassed for dowry and very often she was given beating for the same. On 2-1-1998 she was thrown out of the house of the husband and was asked to bring a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. She was told that she would be allowed to come back only with the sum demanded. The unfortunate mother took her on 3-1-1998 to the parents of the appellant and beseeched them that they should behave properly with her. On 6-1-1998 the mother received telephonic message that a quarrel was taking place with her daughter in her in-laws' house and she should reach there immediately. By the time she reached there, she was informed that Rehana was burnt and was no more alive. A case under S. 304-B and 498-A, IPC was registered. Post-mortem of Rehana was performed by a board of doctors of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur on 6-1-1998. The board opined that Rehana died due to shock because of extensive burns. Challan was submitted for offences under Ss. 498-A and 304-B, IPC. The case came up to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who framed charges u/S. 304-B, IPC and in the alternative under Ss. 306 and 498-A, IPC against the appellant on 12-5-1998. Appellant denied his indictment. Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses on its behalf. Then the appellant was examined under S. 313, Cr. P.C. His defence was that Rehana had a suspicion that the appellant had illicit relations with a lady named Ramzano and, therefore, she might have burnt herself. He also stated that he did not have any illicit relations with Smt. Ramzano. However, he did not examine any witness in defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record.