In The High Court of Rajasthan
Jaipur Bench
Prem Prakash @ Dhara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (Rafiq, J.)
HON'BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
Prem Prakash @ Dhara Singh
Versus
State of Rajasthan
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2006, decided on 25.10.2013
Appeal partly allowed.
n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 302] 304&[k] 498&d & ngst e`R;q ds ekeys esa vkthou dkjkokl dh vf/kdre ltk nsuk & ,Q-,l-,y- fjiksVZ esa vY;qfefu;e QkWLQkbZM dh mifLFkfr gsrq ldkjkRed tkap nh & ;g lkfcr djus gsrq dksbZ lk{; ugha fd vfHk;qDr us oLrqr% e`rdk dh gR;k dh ;k mlus e`rdk dks tgj dk lsou djus gsrq ck/; fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & e`rdk dh ekSr ds lkFk vfHk;qDr ds izR;{k lEcU/k dk vHkko] lEHkkouk dks de djus okyk dkjd gS & ;g vis{kkd`r ,d vkRegR;k dk ekeyk gS & e`R;q ds dkj.k vkSj vfHk;qDr }kjk blesa fuHkk;h xbZ okLrfod Hkwfedk ckcr lk{; ds vHkko esa U;k; ds mn~ns';ksa dh izkfIr gsrq lkr o"kZ dh dBksj dkjkokl dh U;wure ltk i;kZIr gksxh & nks"kflf) o ltk rCnhy dhA ¼in la[;k 24] 25] 27½
vihy va'kr% Lohdkj dhA
| Under Sections | Imprisonment |
| 302 of the IPC | To under Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. |
| 304-B of the IPC | To undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. |
| 498-A of the IPC | To undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. |
|
| All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. |
2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are that a written report (Exhibit P.5) was submitted by one Boduram to the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur, on 13.9.2004 alleging that his daughter Babli was married with accused Prem Prakash @ Dhara Singh as per Hindu rites in June, 2003. At the time of marriage, he gave enough dowry as per his financial status. His daughter Babli was always harassed by her husband Prem Prakash, mother-in-law, sister-in-law Sita, brothers, in-law Harphool and Sanju, on demand of dowry. Babli Devi also complained to the information about such maltreatment. The information visited her in-law's place on 3-4 occasions and requested them not to harass her. He pleaded with them that he, being a poor person with limited means, is unable to satisfy their demand of dowry. When Babli Devi visited the house of information on the occasion of `raksha-bandhan', she narrated the incident of maltreatment by her in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry. When accused Prem Prakash came to take Babli Devi with, the informant tried his best to let him understand not to harass Babli Devi and thereafter sent Babli Devi with Prem Prakash for her in-laws place. She was given Rs. 1500/- in cash, a pair of gold anklet and tops and clothes. On the way, Prem Prakash started beating Babli Devi near Reengus and took her to the house of his maternal grandmother in village Rampura while quarreling, in the night at 9.00 pm on 11.9.2004. It was there that Prem Prakash possibly put an end to the life of Babli Devi by giving her poison. Action be taken.
3. The police thereon registered the case for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused-appellant under Sections 4980A and 304-B of the IPC. The learned trial court, however, apart from framing the charges for those two offences, also alternatively framed the charge for offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution got 26 witnesses examined and exhibited 17 documents in support of its case, whereas the defence examined two witnesses and exhibited seven documents in support of his case. The learned trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellant, as well as Shri Javed Chaudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the material on record.
5. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellant, argued that conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 304-B and 302 IPC is illegal and perverse. The learned trial court has framed defective charges for offence under Sections 304-B and 302 IPC. The prosecution came with two stories. It is well settled that the prosecution cannot come with two stories. There was a great delay in lodging of the first information
Hem Chand vs. State of Haryana ((1994) 6 SCC 727) 26
G.V. Siddaramesh vs. State of Karnataka ((2010) 3 SCC 152) 26
Smt. Shanti & Anr. vs. State of Haryana ((1991) SCC 1 371) 26
Pathan Hussain Basha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ((2012) 8 SCC 594) 26
Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan ((2010) 9 SCC 64 = 2011(1) RLW 29 (SC)) 26
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.