On companymittal for trial, it was numbered as Sessions Case No.
Mani, PW 14, Smt.
However, numbersentence was passed separately for the offence companymitted by them under Section 498 A. Aggrieved against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the respondents accused filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No.
The short facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows On 05.05.1993, the deceased Suman aged 18 years was married to the respondent accused Teg Bahadur in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies.
Mani, Ram Lal, Kushal Singh, Smt.
The Investigating Officer, in our view, has number given any attention to this and had number investigated regarding this.
No witness was examined by the Defence side.
But the demand for dowry still persisted and within five months that Suman stayed in her maternal house, she was sent back to her matrimonial house three four times and threatened to bring new dowry items every time.
7 of 1995.
However, after lot of discussions and negotiations with her in laws, Suman was taken back by her in laws.
On the basis of the written report, F.I.R. was lodged and a case was registered under Sections 498 A, 302 and 202 I.P.C. The Investigation Officer PW 24 reached the place of incident and prepared the site plan of the well Ex.
Manohari, PW 15, Smt.
He, in his statement, has stated that the father of Teg Bahadur has taken the thick rope and also stated that the air of Motor of well is to be taken out.
On 11.09.1994, the information about the death of their daughter Suman was received by the father of the deceased Om Prakash PW 13 from their relative Chunilal PW 8, who was residing in Garhwalon Ki Dhani.
The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses to prove their case.
Likewise, there is numberevidence in regard to the recovery from the well of Sumans ear rings, pieces of bangles and hair clip and that these articles found at the well at the time of search were of Suman.
She also told them that she had been threatened number to return if she was unable to bring a Television, Cooler and money.
Rameshwar was made to go down the well from which one gold ear ring, glass lak bangle pieces and a metal clip was recovered and sealed then and there.
P 10 that when they got bath to Suman before cremation, numberinjuries were seen.
In the presence of the witnesses, the remains of ashes and bones belonging to the deceased Suman were companylected from the cremation place and sealed them there.
487 of 1996 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.
Upon receiving this information, Om Prakash and Ganpat Ram left for the house of Ghanshyam i.e. grandfather of the respondent accused, who told them that their daughter Suman died due to Haiza.
All these witnesses have been declared hostile because they have number supported the prosecution case and the facts mentioned in Ex.
P.C. Upon companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents accused Teg Bahadur, Ghanshyam and Smt.
As already numbericed, Om Prakash, PW 13, Ganpat, Ramkishan and Shri Ram had stated that they have numberinformation about the death and that numberinformation was given to the family members of Suman and that they have denied to have participated in the cremation.
Out of 24 witnesses, 8 of them have turned hostile.
Barji and PW 19, Suman was available.
P 1 in the presence of witnesses Radheyshyam and Lichman Ram.
According to the prosecution, she was harassed, tormented and tortured by her in laws, husband and other relatives and physically abused for bringing insufficient dowry in her marriage.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navalgarh.
Thus Sumans death took place within seven years of her marriage.
The mud on the motor installed in the well was also taken along with the mud which was stuck on the sides of the well was also scraped and sealed and marked as Ex.
There was numberevidence to that effect.
Manohari, Smt.
Out of the women mentioned in the First Information Report, the statements of PW 6, Manbhari, PW 7, Smt.
Singari under Sections 304 B, 498 A and 201 P.C. in the Court of Addl.
In these, the father of the deceased, Suman, PW 13, Om Prakash, grand father of PW 5, Ganpat and mother of the deceased, Smt.
Whereas the other persons of the village, whose statements the prosecution has produced, had stated the presence of the parents of Suman at the time of cremation, as to be seen from the statements of Manbhari, Smt.
PW 6, PW 7, PW 14, PW 15 and PW 16 were declared hostile.
Hira Bai, PW 22, PW 2, Lachhman and PW 3, Radhey Shyam were examined.
On 09.09.1994, at about 10.30 p.m. death of the deceased Suman took place in mysterious circumstances in the intervening night without assigning any logical or companyent reasons for her demise.
In the present case, it is proved that Suman was married on 5.5.1993 and she died on 10.9.1994.
Aggrieved against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court, the State of Rajasthan has filed the above appeal in this Court.
Parmeshwari, Smt.
Barji, Smt.
An F.I.R. was lodged on 13.09.1994 by the father of the deceased Om Prakash who was accompanied by a number of villagers.
During investigation, the statements of various witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.
But upon asking the neighbours they gathered altogether different information that their daughter had been killed mercilessly, being thrown in the well.
Lakshmanan, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 14.03.1997 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.
Dr. AR.
487 of 1996 whereby the High Court allowing the appeal held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is number reliable and on the basis of such weak and unreliable evidence, the guilt of the respondents accused cannot be proved successfully.
Final judgment and order was passed by the High Court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein.
Thereafter, the site plan of the place of incident was prepared and samples of plain earth and suspicious mud from the residential house of the respondent accused were taken and sealed.
After the Gauna ceremony was companypleted, deceased Suman was sent back to her maternal house by her in laws and she companyplained to her parents that she had been sent back because she had number brought enough dowry with her.
Relying upon the facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu held the respondents accused guilty under Sections 498 A, 304 B, 201 I.P.C. and were sentenced to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Parmeshwari, PW 16, Smt.
