K. C. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal by accused appellant Raju @ Rajendra sent through Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota arises out of the judgment and order dated 31. 5. 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Chhabara, by which the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 498a IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on the first count and to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the second count.
(2.) THE substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The facts leading to the present appeal are that on 27. 4. 2000 at 11. 20 AM some unknown person informed the police at Police Station Atru that dead body of a woman was lying in the house of Raju Mali in village Mundla (Barla) and disconnected the phone. Radha Kishan, ASI of Police Station Atru recorded this information in Rojnamcha and since the information was incomplete, he along with police personnels reached village Mundla and completed entire formalities at the site including preparation of site plan, inquest report and seizure etc. Having reached the police station, he submitted a report to the SHO, upon which the SHO registered a case No. 5/2000 under Sec. 174 Cr. P. C. On the next day i. e. on 28. 4. 2000 at 10. 30 AM complainant Babu Lal submitted a written report at Police Station Atru alleging therein that her sister Gita Bai was married to Rajendra about 10-11 years back in collective marriage ceremony of Mali community. After two years of her marriage, `gona' ceremony also took place and she started going to her inlaws family. It was then alleged that immediately after her `gona' Rajendra started beating her and demanding Rs. 15,000/ -. He used to torture her on the pretext that since her father arranged the marriage in a function of the community and therefore he did not give anything against dowry. The complainant further alleged that about 5-6 months earlier, Rajendra had made her to run to Diwali after beating her, but the persons of the community got the matter compromised and sent Gita Bai to her inlaws house along with her husband Rajendra. On 24. 4. 2000 Gita Bai and Rajendra had gone to Kamkheda and were returning to Diwali in the night of 25. 4. 2000 at about 8-9 PM. Having reached Barla Road, Rajendra made the Trolly stopped, while Gita Bai was willing to come to village Diwali along with quests and her family members. Rajendra abused her and forcibly got her down from the Trolly. One Surendra accompanied both for few steps to see them off. On way also Rajendra went on quarreling with his wife Gita. Lastly it was alleged that Rajendra took Gita Bai to village Mundla, where he belaboured her and caused her death. On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered a case against the accused person for offence under Sections 302 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. In the course of investigation the police got conducted autopsy on the deadbody, prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and arrested the accused. Having completed entire formalities as to the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused person in the court of learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate having found the offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions. On the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and after hearing arguments the learned trial court framed charges under Secs. 498-A and 302 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found the accused appellant guilty of the offences charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated herein above. We have heard learned learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scanned the evidence and material available on record. ;