Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 197 (RAJ)

Prveen v. State of Rajasthan

2008-01-23

G.S.SARRAF

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The accused appellants Praveen and Mst. Sharbati @ Sarita have filed this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 12.4.2004 passed by Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Man Singh Murder Case), Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 10/2001 whereby the accused appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and they have been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of the fine further simple imprisonment for three months under Section 498A IPC and to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5u0/- and in default of payment of the fine further simple imprison nt for six months under Section 306 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Raman Kumar Bansal lodged a written report (Ex.P. 1) on 31.3.1990 at the Shahpura Police Station wherein it was stated that his sister Manju @ Pushpa was married to Vimal Kumar and in the marriage he spent money even beyond his financial capacity. In spite of this Manju's in-laws abused him for not giving sufficient dowry. After the marriage when he took his sister from Shahpura, she wept a lot and did not eat food for 2-3 days. On enquiry, she told that the accused appellants and others were subjecting her to harassment in connection with demand of dowry. When he went to Shahpura to bring his sister then her in-laws abused him and taunted him for not giving scooter, television and adequate gold and for the poor quality of the clothes. Whenever he went to Manju's in-laws house they demanded dowry. There were a few deaths in the family of the in-laws of Manju and the accused appellants and others declared that the deaths occurred on account of Manju as she was a witch. On 4.3.1990 he took his sister to his village Mavanda and at that time also the accused appellants and others demanded dowry. On 30.3.1990 the accused appellant Praveen came to Mavanda to take back Manju and at that time as per the custom he offered Rs. 21 to the accused appellants Praveen who threw away the amount and then he had to give Rs. 51/- to the accused appellant Praveen. According to the report his brother Shankar Lal phoned him in the morning on that day to inform that Manju had died. 21 to the accused appellants Praveen who threw away the amount and then he had to give Rs. 51/- to the accused appellant Praveen. According to the report his brother Shankar Lal phoned him in the morning on that day to inform that Manju had died. He suspected that Manju was killed on account of the greed of dowry. 3. After investigation a charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura. A supplementary charge sheet was also filed against the accused Vimal Kumar. The case was then committed to Sessions Judge, Jaipur District and ultimately it was transferred to Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Man Singh Murder Case) for trial. 4. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellants and the co-accused Vimal Kumar under Sections 498A, 306 IPC and discharged the accused Ramesh Kumar, Mamta, Kamal, Satish, Mahaveer and Shakuntla from all the offences. The complainant filed a revision petition before the High Court against the order of discharge and for not framing charge under section 304B IPC whereas the accused persons also filed a criminal misc. petition. The High Court disposed of the aforementioned petitions by observing that a charge under Section 304B IPC be also framed against the accused appellants and the co-accused Vimal Kumar. Consequently, charge under Section 304B IPC was added against the accused appellants and the co-accused Vimal Kumar. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial the prosecution examined 16 witnesses whereas the accused persons examined .5 witnesses in defence. The trial judge acquitted the co-accused Vimal Kumar from all the charges whereas the accused appellants were acquitted under Section 304B IPC but they were convicted under Sections 498A and 306 I,PC and they were sentenced as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by this judgment the accused appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. It may be mentioned here that the co-accused Vimal Kumar who has been acquitted from all the charges is the husband of the deceased Manju whereas the accused appellant Praveen is the 'dewar' and the accused appellant Mst. Sharbati @ Sarita is the mother-in-law of the deceased. 6. Aggrieved by this judgment the accused appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. It may be mentioned here that the co-accused Vimal Kumar who has been acquitted from all the charges is the husband of the deceased Manju whereas the accused appellant Praveen is the 'dewar' and the accused appellant Mst. Sharbati @ Sarita is the mother-in-law of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the op-accused Vimal Kumar who is the husband of the deceased has been acquifted of all the charges levelled against him and the accused appellants has also been acquitted of the offence under Section 304B IPC but they have been found guilty of the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. He submits that learned trial court has found them guilty on two types of evidence. One type of the evidence is where the accused appellants called the deceased a witch and attributed deaths in the family to her and the other type of the evidence relates to an incident on 30.3.1990 where the accused appellant Praveen threw away Rs. 21/- and felt satisfied only after receiving As. 51/- . He submits that whatever be the value of the above evidence he does not challenge the conviction of the accused appellants ender Sections 498A, 306 IPC and his limited prayer is that since the accused appellants have already undergone imprisonment cur more than four years, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of imprisonment passed against them be reduced to the period already undergone by them. He places reliance on (1998) 8 SCC 268 . 7. Learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose the prayer of the learned counsel for the accused appellants. 8. I have gone through the evidence available on the record very carefully and I am fully satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offences under Sections 498A, 306 IPC against the accused appellants and they have been rightly convicted under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. 9. However, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the period served-by the accused appellants in jail is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 10. Consequently, the appeal of the accused appellants is partly allowed. 9. However, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the period served-by the accused appellants in jail is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 10. Consequently, the appeal of the accused appellants is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants under Section 498A, 306 IPC and the sentence passed against them under Section 498A IPC is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment passed against the accused appellants under Section 306 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them and the amount of fine is increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- . In default of payment of the fine they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The appeal stands disposed of as above.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******