Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) The above-named accused appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.11.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 15/99 by which he convicted the accused appellant in the following manner: JUDGEMENT_91_LAWS(RAJ)8_2000_1.html
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 9.5.1999 at about 12.10 PM, PW 1 Shiv Karan, by caste Harijan lodged a report Ex. P/1 to PW 8 Laburam, SHO, Police Station Ahore, District Jalore stating that his daughter Madhu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married to accused appellant in the month of February, 1997. Since after the marriage, his son-in-law i.e. accused appellant used to treat the deceased with cruelty and used to beat her and also used to demand dowry. It is further stated in the report that whenever deceased used to come to his house, she used to tell all the mal- treatments done by accused appellant on her, but she was consoled by saying that everything would be set right. It is further stated that whenever accused appellant used to come to his house, he used to take liquor and thereafter, he used to beat deceased and used to demand money and other items. Before this incident, near about 10-15 days back, deceased came to his house, but on 7.5.1999, a day before the fateful incident, accused appellant came to his house and in his absence took the deceased to his house at Ahore. On 8.5.1999 information was received that deceased had died and upon this, he and other members of his family went to Ahore and they were of the view that deceased had been killed by accused appellant and his mother, as they used to torture her and make demand for dowry etc. and for non-compliance of dowry demand, they used to threaten that they would kill the deceased. On this report, police registered the case and started investigation. During investigation, the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by PW 7 Dr. Ghanshyam Tripathi and the post mortem report of the deceased is Ex. P/6. The cause of death of deceased opined in Ex. P/6 reads as under:- "In our opinion, the cause of death of Smt. Madhu is due to (sic) Asphyxia, caused by hanging." During investigation, the accused appellant was arrested on 18.5.1999 through fard Ex. P/2. Before the report Ex. P/1, the father of the accused appellant also lodged a report Ex. P/7 before PW. 8 Laburam on 8.5.1999 stating that on 7.5.1999 accused appellant took the deceased from the house of his father-in-law and at about 1.30 on 8.5.1999 accused appellant put his daughter of eight months with him and, thereafter, at about 2.00 PM deceased committed suicide. On this report, police registered marg FIR No. 11/99 under Section 176 Cr.P.C. and investigation was started by SDM PW 9 Ramdayal Meena. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused appellant for committing offence under Secs. 304-B and 498-A IPC. in the Court of Magistrate and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 16.8.1999, the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore framed charges under Secs. 498-A, 304-B and in the alternative Section 306 IPC were framed against the accused appellant. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guiity and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and several documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused appellant. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalore vide his judgment and order dated 24.11.1999 acquitted the accused appellant of the charge under Section 304-B IPC but convicted him under Secs. 498-A and 306 IPC and sentenced in the manner stated above, holding inter-alia:- 1. That deceased committed suicide. 2. That he also drew the presumption under section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act against accused appellant. 3. That no case under section 304-B IPC was made out against the accused appellant, but case of abetment and mal-treatment has been proved and thus, accused appellant was convicted under Ss. 498-A and 306 IPC. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 24.11.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.
(3.) In this appeal, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has made the following submissions:- 1. That in the present case, incident took place on 8.5.1999 and report was lodged on 9.5.1999 and therefore, there is a delay in lodging the report. Thus, prosecution case should not be held proved. 2. That the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly placed reliance on Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. That no case of abetment is made out in the present case. Hence, it has been argued that the accused appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him.;