Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara by judgment and order dated Ist August, 1997 1 companyvicted the appellant Vikas for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 498 A and 304 B of IPC 2 companyvicted Shripat father , Sohanbai mother for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 304 B IPC 3 however, acquitted sisters of the appellant, Jyoti and Yojna by giving benefit of doubt.
No doubt, she admitted that medicines for tension were brought from Ahmedabad.
By judgment and order dated 18th April, 2000, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and companyvicted the appellant Vikas for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and maintained the sentence of imprisonment for life.
On 28th July, 1990 at about 7.00 pm when Ms. Neeta was at the residence of PW3 Smt.
Neeta went out and met him.
The Court also maintained the companyviction of Vikas, Shripat and Sohanbai for the offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC, however, reduced the sentence to the period they had already undergone.
Kamla Bai.
The Court also set aside the companyviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC.
Neetas mother had also gone to the house of Jitendra Lal.
In the cross examination, numberhing material has been found so as to disbelieve the version given by her before the Court.
Sanjiv returned to the house and disclosed this fact to his father.
Thereafter, Neeta told her that her husband was taking her along with him and then they went on vicky towards Mahalaxmi Chowk.
At about 6 to 7 p.m., Vikas came to her house on his vicky along with his daughter.
from Gemmon bridge.
Kamla Bai PW3.
Against that judgment and order, companyvicted accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.374 of 1997 before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
Vikas came there with minor child at about 7 p.m. Neeta went outside the house and thereafter within three minutes, she came back and told her aunt Smt.
Kamla Bai, PW3 and Rohit Doshi, PW4.
It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons were number satisfied with the dowry brought by Ms. Neeta.
She was shown ornaments, which Neeta was wearing when she went along with Vikas.
She talks about the payment of some amount to Vikas and others which we are number required to discuss here.
It is her say that on the next day when some medicines were to be given to Neeta and when Neeta was number found at her house, Shripat father of appellant came in the lane, where people had companylected.
Hence, a case was registered under Sections 364/498 A IPC by the police against Vikas, his father, mother and two married sisters.
P/4 was lodged by PW9 Narendra Lal on 29.6.1990 at Police Station Banswara.
Kamla Bai gets companyroboration from the evidence of PW4 Rohit Doshi who has stated that at about 6.30 in the evening he was sitting in the house of his grandmother Smt.
It is also her say that on the day of incident, her daughter had gone at Smt.
After companypleting the necessary investigation, the accused were charge sheeted, tried and companyvicted as stated above.
At that time, Vikas was sitting in the shop and he refused to accept the medicines saying that Ms. Neeta is number at the residence.
She identified said ornaments before the Magistrate.
Vikas took her on the vicky.
She informed Shripat that her son had taken away Neeta but Shripat denied.
Kamla Bai that Vikas had companye to take her.
The aforesaid version by Smt.
PW10 Sanjiv his son went to the house of the appellant to give medicines to his sister Neeta.
On 28th June, 1990, Neeta had gone to the house of Smt.
Suggestion was made about Neeta having some disease which was denied by her.
She gave birth to a female child at her parents house.
After sometime, Neetas mother also came to her house and she informed her that Neeta had been taken away by her husband.
Kamla Bais house and from there Neeta was taken away by Vikas as narrated by Smt.
It was further mentioned that on 24.6.1990 when Neeta was being taken towards Garia Khandu Colony on the way one known person met them and appellant dropped her back at his residence.
They were harassing her for want of dowry.
Kamla Bai fathers sister , Vikas went there and they went out on a motor bike.
After 3 4 days, at the instance of Vikas, Neetas dead body was found near Gemmon bridge.
Police started the investigation and at the instance of appellant dead body of Neeta was recovered at a distance of 1 km.
Next day, she did number return.
The investigating officer also recovered ornaments of Neeta at the instance of Vikas, which were put on by Neeta when she had gone at the house of PW3 Smt.
Appellant informed him that Neeta had number companye there and they have number seen Neeta for the last four days.
It was also mentioned that they had searched for Neeta but it was of numberavail.
The informant expressed his suspicion against Vikas and his family members.
He called Neeta by signal.
On the next morning PW10 Sanjiv was sent by his parents to the house of appellant Vikas for delivery of medicines to Ms. Neeta.
It was mentioned in the FIR that on 26.6.1990 deceased Neeta came to his house on account of demand of TV being made by the appellant and four others.
A search for Neeta was carried out, but it did number yield any result, therefore, FIR Ex.
Therefore, she was being ill treated and tortured.
