RAKESH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-55
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 02,2013

Rakesh and others Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) RAM Swarup (PW 1) wrote a complaint to Station Officer, Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar, on 31.10.2004, in which it was stated that his sister, Saria (the victim), was married to appellant Raju about five years ago; Sarla did not beget any child; appellant Raju and the in -laws of Sarla started harassing her on account of non -fulfillment of dowry demands since the very beginning; and they used to torture her physically and mentally. PW 1 further stated that he belonged to a poor family and, therefore, he and his father could not fulfill the demands of the in -laws of Sarla and they used to persuade the in -laws of Sarla not to harass her, but to no avail. PW 1 further stated that, about 5 -6 days ago, his sister Sarla was killed by her husband appellant Raju; her Jeth (brother -in -law) appellant Rakesh; her another Jeth (brother -in -law) appellant Suresh; and her mother -in -law Rohli, and, they also cremated her dead body in the crematorium surreptitiously with the help of appellant Chetan. Thereafter, another Application, in the form of addendum, was given by PW 1 to the Circle Officer stating that his sister Sarla was, in fact, married to appellant Raju in June, 1995 and the fact that Sarla was married to appellant Raju five years ago was wrongly written in his earlier complaint.
(2.) ON the basis of the said complaint, lodged by PW 1, a First Information Report was registered against the appellants and Rohli (mother -in -law of Sarla) for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, during the course of investigation, the case was converted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellants and Rohli (mother -in -law of Sarla) for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, trial commenced. Charges for commission of offences punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against appellant Raju, appellant Rakesh, appellant Suresh and Rohli (mother -in -law of Sarla), and charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against appellant Chetan. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As many as 09 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and, thereafter, incriminating evidence was put to the appellants and Rohli (mother -in -law of Sarla) in statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All of (sic) their participation in the incident in question and said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was tendered on behalf of the defence. After hearing both the sides, the learned court below, by the judgment and order under appeals, convicted appellant Raju for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted appellants Rakesh, Suresh and Chetan for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned court below acquitted Rohli (mother -in -law of Sarla) of all the charges leveled against her giving her the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Raju was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 20,000/ -, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three months; and, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Raju was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, with fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Appellants Rakesh, Suresh and Chetan were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each, with fine of Rs. 10,000/ - each, and, in default of payment of fine, each of them was directed to undergo further imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals were preferred.
(3.) PROSECUTION led the evidence through Sahi Ram (PW 2), Bhanwar Singh (PW 3), Parmeeta (PW 4) and Surendra Singh (PW 5). Let us examine their evidence in detail.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.