Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1823 (RAJ)

Anoj v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-19

S.P.PATHAK

body2005
Judgment B. Prasad, J.-The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, in Sessions Case No. 25/2001 dated 30th August, 2001. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant candidly conceded that the marriage of the accused Anoj was solemnised on 27th May, 1988. Thus incident was within the statutory limit for taking proceedings under Section 304-B, IPC. 3. As regards the implication of the husband, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the presumption clause will come against him. But he contended that as regards the parents of the accused husband, there is no sufficient evidence available on record to connect them with the crime. In fact, the incident had occurred in the background that Poonam wanted to consume poison and the husband prevented this and thrashed her. Demand of dowry by the parents is not made out. The trial Court has already acquitted Manoj, brother of Anoj. Whatever was the evidence against Manoj the same is the evidence against Laxmi Narayan and Kamla Bai. In this background, if Manoj has been acquitted then the case of Kamla Bai and Laxmi Narayan also deserves to be dealt with in the same light. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to distinguish the cases of Manoj, Laxmi Narayan and Kamla Bai. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the case of Kamla Bai and Laxmi Narayan being identical to that of Manoj, and Manoj having been acquitted, and the demand of dowry not specifically established against the family members, it cannot be said that the case under Sections 304-B and 498-A, as has been held proved by the trial Court against the accused Kamla Bai and Laxmi Narayan, can be side to be made out. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that these two persons be also acquitted of the charges levelled against them. These two accused persons are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 304-B and 498-A, IPC. Consequently, the sentence awarded against them are also set aside. They are on bail their bail bonds are cancelled. 6. These two accused persons are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 304-B and 498-A, IPC. Consequently, the sentence awarded against them are also set aside. They are on bail their bail bonds are cancelled. 6. As regards Anoj, it would be appropriate that as the learned Counsel having not seriously contended his implication and looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that his conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A be sustained. The sentence awarded to him is to the tune of life and we feel that it would be on the higher side. It, would be appropriate if the substantive sentence of Anoj is reduced to 10 years under Section 304-B. The sentence awarded to Anoj under Section 498A is, however, maintained. 7. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to Kamla and Laxmi Narayan are set aside. As regards the accused Anoj, his conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A are sustained. However, the sentence awarded under Section 304-B is modified and instead of life, the substantive sentence is reduced to 10 years. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. Anoj is behind the bar, he shall serve out the sentence.