- (1.) The appellant has challenged the legality of the judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.80/2009 State v. Kuna Ram decided on 15.5.2010 and awarding conviction under Section 304-B of I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine and sentencing to undergo 3 year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and further to undergo 6 month's simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine under Section 498A of I.P.C.
(2.) The prosecution version in brief is as follows. The complainant Maanga Ram S/o Keshar Ram, father of deceased "Gobardi" alias Gomti, lodged a FIR Exhibit-1 with Police Station Dechu stating that marriage of his daughter "Gobardi" was solemnized two years back with Kuna Ram S/o Magna Ram at village Balesar, at the time of marriage, he had bestowed dowry within his capacity and had given ear studs (Totia), Nutth and 4 rings of silver with ankle Kada Gajariya and two bracelets, two kandoras and his daughter "Gobardi" was tortured and harassed by her husband Kuna Ram, Devar Chhaganaram and Jethani after marriage for dowry and they used to beat her, one year back, "Gobardi" was ousted after giving beating. Gomadram S/o Hansa Ram Meghwal fetch my daughter to Balesar and we did not register case to avoid social disgrace and she was sent back after panchayat, but these fellows did not stop beating, so he brought "Gobardi" to Balesar. Ten days ago, husband of Gobardi, Kuna Ram came to Balesar and after fighting, forcibly took away his daughter, today on 3.9.2008, a jeep came to us at Balesar and we were told that Gobardi, his daughter is no more and asked us to go along. We have developed full doubt that Kuna Ram and his family members have murdered "Gobardi" because they have earlier beaten his daughter and have hitherto tortured and harassed her because of dowry, so they have killed his daughter, hence, it is requested to register a case of murder against greedy persons for dowry and legal action be taken against them.
(3.) Advancing the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-accused has contended that basic ingredients to constitute offence under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code does not exist, since there is no evidence with respect to demand of dowry, soon before the alleged crime, the learned trial Court has just discussed the evidence without any reasoning and evaluation. Quoting contents of evidence of several prosecution witnesses, learned counsel has submitted that none of the witness ever stated accusation of the demand of dowry, soon before the alleged offence. Referring to the morgue proceedings conducted under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., learned counsel has pointed out that PW-6 Smt. Manju Devi has asserted that fact of demand of dowry was not communicated to the Executive Magistrate conducting enquiry into the cause of unnatural death. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the following precedents: (1) Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2000 AIR(SC) 2324, (2) State of Rajasthan v. Girdhari Lal, 2013 AIR(SCW) 5647, (3) Hazarilal v. State of M.P., 2007 CrLR 500, (4) Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., 2007 AIR(SC) 2457, (5) Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2001 AIR(SC) 2828 and (6) Tejinder Pal Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2001 AIR(SC) 2828, it is contended that on the basis of the evidence, offence under Section 304B of IPC cannot be inferred to have been committed, if alleged accusation of beating is contemplated, even then it may go up to the extend of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC, so, the learned trial Court has defaulted and has wrongly appreciated the evidence erroneously. Learned counsel has further argued that allegations regarding beating or cruelty could confine to Section 498A of IPC only. The appellant has already remained in custody for more than six years, and has further contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed, so, the appeal be accepted and the impugned conviction, order and sentence passed be set aside and quashed. Learned public prosecutor has conversely contended that there is no error in the impugned conviction order, while referring evidence of father, parental uncle and parental aunt of the deceased, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is ample evidence available on the record of the trial Court, since all the witnesses have specifically narrated accusation of demand of dowry and cruelty subjected soon after the marriage and throughout the marital span, even deceased was badly beaten by the appellant-accused at several occasions and on every visit to her parental home, deceased complained and informed her family members the fact of cruelty perpetrated upon her by appellant, whose accused husband insisted demanding money, even before her death, she was beaten and when she was brought to her parental house, where her family members found injuries on her body of beating and an amount of Rs.20,000/- was informed to have been demanded then, the accused did not yield with sheer beating but came again to victim's parental home near Rakshabandhan and beatingly dragged her back home, the appellant-accused has murdered her wife within a period of seven years and there was a perennial demand of dowry throughout the marital relations and doctrine of presumption of bride killing arises. Learned trial court has not committed any fault or error in passing the impugned conviction order, so the appeal of the appellant-accused be dismissed.;