B. Prasad, J. - (1.) 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 solemnized on 27th May, 1988. Thus incident was within the statutory limit for taking proceedings under Section 304B, 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.;