HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 640 / 2010

Jeet Ram S/o Shri Kani Ram, by caste Jat, resident of village
Charanwasi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh

[at present lodged at District Jail, Hanumangarh]

—-Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent

Connected With

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 34 / 2011

Nand Ram S/o Sh. Rawa Rawata Ram, by caste Jat, resident of
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil Haumangarh, District Hanumangarh,

—-Appellant

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Rajji Ram S/o Sh. Kani Ram, by caste Jat, Resident of
Charanwasi,

3. Mst. Samesta W/o Sh. Rajji Ram, by caste Jat, resident of
Charanwasi, Tehsil Nohar, District Haumangarh

—-Respondent

__

Mr. Sunil Beniwal for appellant (Cr. Appeal No.640/2010)

Mr. Kulwant Singh for appellant/complainant (Cr. Appeal
No.34/2011)

Mr. Vishnu Kachhawa, PP

Mr. HSS Kharlia, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Bhawani Singh, for the respondents (Cr. Appeal No.34/2011)
(2 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

__

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas :

Date of Judgment :: 11th July, 2017

DB Cr. Appeal No.640/2010 has been filed by the accused

appellant Jeet Ram under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the

judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him on

15.1.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) NO.2,

Hanumangarh, Headquarter Nohar in Sessions Case No.96/2007

(6/2007) whereby the accused appellant, Jeet Ram was convicted

for offence under Section 304 B and 498A of IPC and following

sentence was passed against him:

For offence u/s 304B IPC Life imprisonment.
For offence u/s 498A IPC Three years RI with fine of Rs.500/-

and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo one month RI.

[both the sentences were ordered
to run concurrently].

The D.B. Cr. Appeal No.34/2011 has been filed by the

complainant Nand Ram under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the

same judgment dated 15.12.2010 passed in Cr. Case No.96/2007

(6/2007) by which the learned trial court acquitted the

respondents, Rajji Ram and Mst. Samesta W/o Rajji Ram from the

charge levelled against them under Section 498A and 304B IPC.

(3 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

Both the appeals are arising out from the judgment dated

15.12.2010 passed in Cr. Appeal No.96/2007 (6/2007), therefore,

we are deciding both the appeals filed by the accused appellant

and complainant by this common judgment.

As per facts of the case, the complainant Nand Ram (PW–1)

submitted a written repot on 7.7.2006 at 11.00 am before the

SHO Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh alleging therein

that marriage of his daughter Suman was solemnized in the year

2001 with Jeet Ram S/o Kani Ram, resident of Charanwasi as per

hindu rites. At the time of marriage, ornaments and other articles

were given by the complainant-father as per his capacity but after

marriage, the behavior of her husband Jeet Ram and his elder

brother Rajiji Ram and his wife Samesta became bad and they

repeatedly made demand for cash and dowry articles and

harassed the deceased Suman. In the FIR, it is reported that

Suman (deceased) informed all happenings to her uncle Dilip

Chand and aunt Smt. Kamla and other relatives and ousted from

the house twice or thrice. The deceased gave birth to Rita

(daughter) and son. The brother-in-law Brijlal and Krishan Kumar

tried to settle the matrimonial life of them but after some time,

husband Jeet Ram and his brother and brother’s wife again started

demand of dowry.

Before 20 days of alleged incident, the brother of the

deceased Balveer visited the house of Suman where she informed

that she is being harassed and beaten for demand of Rs.10,000/-

otherwise you will be ousted from the house.

(4 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

The complainant after borrowing Rs.5,000/- from one Madan

Lal gave to the deceased Suman to satisfy the demand of money.

In the FIR it is specifically stated that on 7.7.2006 telephonic call

received from Suman by the father in which it is informed that

since her brother gave less amount, therefore, her in-laws are not

happy and they might have killed me. Upon receiving such

information, the complainant went to the house of deceased, but

he was not permitted to meet his daughter. On the other day,

in-laws of the deceased Suman informed that your daughter has

suffered heart attack then complainant rushed to the in-laws

house of his daughter and found that husband and his elder

brother and wife of elder brother were present and his daughter

Suman was lying dead in the house.

As per complainant, there were injuries on her face and

neck, therefore he informed the incident to his relatives. Upon

aforesaid report submitted by the complainant, FIR no.338 was

registered at Police Station Nohar on 7.7.2006 for the offences

under Section 304B and 498A read with Section 34 IPC against

the accused appellant Jeet Singh, brother Rajji Ram and his wife

Smt. Samesta and investigation was commenced. During

investigation, post mortem of the dead body was conducted and

after arrest of the accused appellant as well his brother Rajji Ram

and his wife Smt. Samesta, investigation was conducted from

them and after completing investigation charge-sheet was filed

against the accused appellant Jeet Ram and his brother Rajji

Rama and Smt. Samesta wife of Rajji Ram in the court of Chief
(5 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

Judicial Magistrate, Nohar. The offence committed by the accused

appellant was triable by Sessions Judge, therefore, the learned

Magistrate Committed the case to the Sessions Court,

Hanumangarh for trial, but it was transferred for trial in the court

of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.2, Hanumangarh Headquarter

Nohar.

The learned trial court after providing an opportunity of

hearing framed charge against the accused appellant Jeet Ram

and his brother Rajji Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta under

Section 498A and 304 IPC and commenced the trial.

To prove the prosecution case following witnesses were

examined:

PW–1 Nand Ram, complainant father

PW–2 Madan Lal, cousin brother of the deceased Suman

PW–3 Krishan Chand, real maternal uncle of deceased Suman

PW–4 Suresh Kumar, owner of the STD PCO situated near the

house of complainant Nand Lal at Haumangarh Town.

PW–5 Balveer, brother of the deceased

PW–6 Narendra Ola, CEO, Nohar who commenced the

investigation.

PW–7 Vimla Devi, mother of the deceased

PW–8 Saroj, real sister of the deceased Suman

PW–9 Dr. Vinod Chomwal, who has conducted the post mortem of

the deceased at Government Hospital, Nohar

PW–10 Ram Kishan Songara, CEO (ST/SC Cell), Hanumangarh
(6 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

No other witness is produced in support of prosecution case.

Although in the charge-sheet list of 27 witnesses was given but

out of 27 witness 17 witnesses were not produced before the court

in support of prosecution case.

After recording evidence of prosecution, the learned trial

court recorded statement of all the three accused under Section

313 Cr.P.C., but they denied all the allegations of witnesses and

gave specific reply by Rajji Ram, brother of Jeet Ram and Smt.

Samesta that they are not residing with the appellant Jeet Ram,

they are living separately and submits that all the allegations

levelled by the prosecution witnesses with regard to dowry are

false.

In defence, following six witnesses were examine from

defence side:

DW-1 Ram Jas

DW-2 Jeet Ram

DW-3 Raja Ram

DW-4 Pratap Singh

DW-5 Ladu Ram

DW-6 Pratap

After recording evidence of prosecution as well as defence,

the learned trial court heard final arguments of the case and

convicted the accused appellant Jeet Ram husband of the

deceased for committing offence under Section 304B and 498A

IPC but acquitted the accused Rajji Ram S/o Kani Ram and his
(7 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

wife Smt. Samesta from the charge levelled against them for

offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC vide judgment dated

15.10.2010 in Sessions Case No.96/2007 (6/2007).

DB Cr. Appeal No.640/2010 has been filed by accused

appellant Jeet Ram against the conviction and sentence passed

against him vide judgment dated 15.12.2010 whereas DB Cr.

Appeal No.34/2011 has been filed by the complainant Nand Ram

against finding of acquittal of Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta wife

of Rajji Ram.

Learned counsel for the appellant Jeet Ram restricted his

arguments to the extent of quantum and submits that although all

the allegations levelled by the prosecution for demand of dowry

are false but appellant has been convicted for offence under

Section 304B IPC on the ground that Suman died in her in-laws

house within seven years upon presumption and passed the

sentence for life imprisonment, but it is not a rarest of rare case

in which maximum punishment provided in the IPC for offence

under Section 304B IPC could be imposed. Learned counsel for

the appellant submits that during trial, the appellant Jeet Ram was

on bail and after conviction vide judgment dated 15.12.2010 he is

behind the bars.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section

304B IPC the trial court has jurisdiction to pass maximum

sentence upto life imprisonment and minimum sentence of 7 years

is to be passed upon the seriousness of the case, but here in this

case, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant
(8 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

and his brother and brother’s wife on the basis of statement of 27

witnesses, but only ten close relative witness of the deceased

Suman were produced in the court out of 27 witness and 17

witnesses were not produced to support the prosecution case

though their names were included in the list. Further, it is

submitted that for inflicting maximum punishment, the court was

required to consider surrounding circumstances and seriousness of

the fact as per the evidence on record. Admittedly, the deceased

died due to hanging as per prosecution case. The marriage of

accused appellant was solemnized in the year 2000 and incident

took place in the year 2006 and as per statement of PW–9 Dr.

Vinod Chomwal the cause of death was asphyxia, recorded in

post mortem report Ex.P/13. In the cross-examination it is

specifically stated by the doctor that there was no external ante

mortem injury and it is a case of hanging, therefore, obviously,

there is no allegation of causing any injury before death to the

deceased, but the learned trial court passed sentence for life

imprisonment which is maximum sentence provided in the IPC in

Section 304B IPC. The argument of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that as per evidence on record the conduct of the

accused appellant was bad with the deceased but there is no

evidence of any incident for causing injuries to the deceased,

more so, from the wedlock of accused appellant and deceased

Suman, two issues were born, who are alive. Therefore, it is

submitted that on the basis of surrounding circumstances the

sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B
(9 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

IPC passed upon presumption may be reduced from life

imprisonment to already undergone. In support of his

arguments, learned counsel for the appellants invited our

attention towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Government of NCT of

Delhi) reported in (2014) 4 SCC 375 in which the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that at the time of inflicting punishment, the

surrounding circumstances are required to be seen to pass

maximum sentence and in this case, there is no evidence of

regular quarrel or beating and demand of dowry, therefore,

sentence of life imprisonment passed against the accused

appellant Jeet Ram may kindly be reduced from life imprisonment

to already undergone because it is not rarest of rare case in which

maximum sentence can be passed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grounds

raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to

reduce the sentence and submits that it is a case in which a young

girl was murdered in her husband’s house due to hanging and

there is ample evidence on record to prove the allegation of

demand of dowry. While inviting attention towards the statement

of complainant PW–1 and other relatives it is vehemently argued

that conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court

against the accused appellant for offence under Section 304B and

498A IPC does not require any interference.

(10 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that a grave

error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to acquit

the elder brother Rajji Ram and his wife Samesta of the accused

appellant Jeet Ram because both these persons were residing in

the same house where Jeet Ram and deceased Suman were

residing and in the FIR itself allegations were levelled by the

complainant against them also for demand of dowry, so also,

cruelty was committed by them with deceased Suman right from

marriage, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have

considered the evidence to convict Rajji Ram and his wife Smt.

Samesta alongwith main accused Jeet Ram, husband of Suman.

The learned trial court committed a grave error to acquit Rajji

Ram, brother of the accused appellant Jeet Ram and his wife

Samesta while giving erroneous finding, therefore, the finding of

acquittal recorded by the learned trial court for Rajji Ram and

Samesta may kindly be set aside and they may also be convicted

for offence under Section 498A and 304B IPC.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant

while arguing the appeal against the acquittal of Rajji Ram and

Smt. Samesta submits that all the prosecution witnesses

categorically made allegations for demand of dowry against Rajji

Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta and proved the fact that they are

liable to be punished under Section 304B IPC while drawing

presumption against them because they were residing with the

accused appellant in the same house where hanging took place.

According to the prosecution, the death of Suman was unnatural,
(11 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

therefore, there is no reason to disturb the finding of the learned

trial court of conviction against the husband Jeet Ram and

further to quash the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned

trial court for acquittal against Rajji Ram and his wife Smt.

Samesta, therefore, while dismissing the appeal filed by the

accused appellant, the appeal filed by complainant Nand Lal

against finding of acquittal of Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta,

brother and brother’s wife of accused appellant Jeet Ram kindly be

allowed and they may also be convicted for offence under Section

304B and 498A IPC.

The learned Senior Advocate Sh. HHS Kharilia, assisted by

learned counsel Bhawani Singh appearing in D.B. Cr. Appeal

No.34/2011 filed by the complainant Nand Lal argued that no

error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to acquit

Rajji Ram and his wife Smt. Samesta. The learned senior counsel

vehemently argued that Rajji Ram is residing separately which is

evident from the site plan (Ex.P/4) and investigating officer has

accepted in his statement that Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta were

not living with the accused appellant Jeet Ram and deceased

Suman, therefore, on the aforesaid fact no presumption can be

drawn against them to hold them guilty for offence under Section

304B IPC or 498A. Learned Senior Advocate further argued that it

is a case in which all the prosecution witnesses are close relatives

of the deceased Suman and independent witnesses though

arrayed in the list of witnesses but not produced before the court,

in the defence six witnesses were produced from accused side and
(12 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

they categorically proved that there was no demand of dowry and

deceased committed suicide, therefore, no presumption can be

drawn to convict Rajji Ram and Samesta for the offence under

Section 304B and 498A IPC, therefore, prayed that the appeal

filed by the complainant Nand Ram against the judgment of

acquittal of Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta may kindly be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all we

are considering the arguments of learned counsel Mr. Sunil

Beniwal, appearing on behalf of accused appellant, Jeetram, (DB

Cri. Appeal No.640/2010) field against the judgment dated

15.10.2010 by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 304B

and 498A of IPC. There is no dispute that marriage of accused

appellant, Jeetram was solemnized with deceased, Smt. Suman in

the year 2001. It is also not in dispute that out of their wedlock,

two issues (Rita and son) were born and they are still alive. It is

also admitted position of the case that out of 27 witnesses

mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with charge sheet,

but only 10 witnesses were produced before the trial court to

prove the case. Out of 10 witnesses, PW.1- Nandram (father of

deceased), PW.2- Madanlal (cousin brother of deceased), PW.3-

Krishan Chand (real maternal uncle of deceased), PW.7- Smt.

Vimla Devi (mother of deceased) and PW.8 Mst. Saroj (real sister

of deceased) and no other independent witness is produced before

the court to prove the allegations of cruelty, harassment and

demand of dowry. Admittedly, all these witnesses are not residing

in the village where deceased and appellants were residing.

(13 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

Upon perusal of the statement of PW.9- Dr. Vinod Chomwal,

it is also obvious that no external injury was found upon the body

of deceased, Smt. Suman. In the examination in chief, Dr. Vinod

Chomwal (PW.9) categorically stated that, “gk;kM
s Z ckusa LoLFk Fkh o vius
LFkku ij FkhA oVhcZ j dkWye eas dkbs Z QzsDpj ugha ik;k x;kA ¼ljokbZdy½A “kjhj ij dkbs Z

ckgjh pkVs ugha FkhA e`R;q i”pkr dh tdMu+ ekStnw FkhA” and in the cross

examination said witness said that, “;g lgh gS fd e`Rrdk ds “kjhj ij ckMs Z

us ckgjh rkSj ij dkbs Z e`R;qiow Z dh pkVs ugha ik;hA ;fn dkbs Z O;fDr thfor voLFkk eas
Qkl
a h [kkrk gS rks mlds eqga ds dkus s ls ykj vkrh gSA gk;kMs ckus dk n:

q Lr gkus k

lkekU;r;k vkRegR;k dks nf”kZr djrk gSA”

Meaning thereby, the allegations of beating or causing injury

has not been proved by the prosecution. More so, as per opinion

of the doctor symptoms loudly speak that it was a case of suicide.

In defence, six witnesses were produced by the accused

appellants. Most of the witnesses stated on oath that relationship

of the deceased and appellant was cordial and they never saw any

quarrel in between the couple. Accused appellant Jeet Ram

himself appeared before the court as DW.2, and narrated the

story with regard to other dispute in between his father-in-law,

Nandram and him. He has explained as to why deceased

committed suicide. Admittedly, the counsel for appellant has not

challenge the finding of conviction recorded against the accused

appellant, Jeetram, under Section 304B of IPC and restricted his

prayer only to reduce the sentence of life imprisonment to the

period already undergone which is more than seven years. In

support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has
(14 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

invited our attention towards judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

reported in (2014) 4 SCC 375. In the aforesaid judgment while

considering the identical case, the Hon’ble Apex Court reduced the

sentence of life imprisonment to ten years and laid down

parameters for passing sentence for offence u/s 304B IPC, which

reads as infra:

“16. Applying the above parameters to the facts of the
present case it transpires that the death of the wife of the
accused-appellant occurred within two years of marriage.
There was, of course, a demand for dowry and there is evidence
of cruelty or harassment. The autopsy report of the deceased
showed external marks of injuries but the cause of death of
deceased was stated to be due to asphyxia resulting from
strangulation. In view of the aforesaid finding of Dr. L.T.
Ramani (PW-16) who had conducted the postmortem, the
learned Trial Judge thought it proper to acquit the accused of
the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code on the benefit of
doubt as there was no evidence that the accused was, in any
way, involved with the strangulation of the deceased. The
proved facts on the basis of which offence under Section 304-B of
the Penal Code was held to be established, while acquitting the
accused-appellant of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal
Code, does not disclose any extraordinary, perverse or diabolic
act on the part of the accused-appellant to take an extreme view
of the matter. Coupled with the above, at the time of
commission of the offence, the accused-appellant was about 21
years old and as on date he is about 42 years. The accused-
appellant also has a son who was an infant at the time of the
occurrence. He has no previous record of crime. On a
cumulative application of the principles that would be relevant
to adjudge the crime and the criminal test, we are of the view
(15 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

that the present is not a case where the maximum punishment of
life imprisonment ought to have been awarded to the accused-
appellant. At the same time, from the order of the learned Trial
Court, it is clear that some of the injuries on the deceased,
though obviously not the fatal injuries, are attributable to the
accused-appellant. In fact, the finding of the learned Trial
Court is that the injuries No. 1 (Laceration 1″ x ½” skin deep
on the side of forehead near hair margin) and 2 (Laceration 1
½” x 1″ scalp deep over the frontal area) on the deceased had
been caused by the accused-appellant with a pestle. The said
part of the order of the learned Trial Court has not been
challenged in the appeal before the High Court. Taking into
account the said fact, we are of the view that in the present case
the minimum sentence prescribed i.e. seven years would also
not meet the ends of justice. Rather we are of the view that a
sentence of ten years RI would be appropriate.

17. Consequently, we modify the impugned order dated
4.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi and impose the
punishment of ten years RI on the accused-appellant for the
commission of the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code.
The sentence of fine is maintained. The accused-appellant who
is presently in custody shall serve out the remaining part of the
sentence in terms of the present order.”

In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court reduced

the sentence of life imprisonment passed against the accused

(appellant therein) under Section 304-B of IPC to 10 years’

rigorous imprisonment on the ground that at the time of incident,

accused appellant of that case was 21 years of age and now he is

42 years of age, and further the appellant is having son who was

infant at the time of occurrence; and there is no previous record

of crime. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that some of
(16 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

injuries were found upon the body of the deceased and those

injuries were not fatal in nature, therefore, reduced the sentence

from life imprisonment to ten years’ RI.

In the instant case, as per opinion of the doctor, there was

no external injury upon the body of the deceased, accused

appellant have two issues one daughter and a son and as per

statement of doctor it is a case of suicide, therefore, we are

inclined to accept the prayer of the accused appellant that is not

rarest of rare case, in which maximum punishment i.e. life

imprisonment for offence u/s 304B of IPC could be imposed. It is

also one of important fact that there is no finding of cruelty on

record because no incident is reported by the prosecution with

regard to cruel attitude of the accused appellant and his family

member. Thus, in view of above discussion, the prayer of the

accused appellant- Jeetram to reduce the sentence deserves

acceptance.

Now, we are considering the appeal filed by the complaint,

Nandram (DB Cri. Appeal No.34/2011) assailing the judgment

impugned dated 15.12.2010 whereby, respondents No.2 Rajji

Ram (brother-in-law of deceased) and Mst. Samesta (Bhabhi of

deceased) were acquitted from the charges under Sections 498A

and 304B of IPC. Admittedly, Rajji Ram is the brother of Jeetram

and as per site plan Ex.P/4) he was not residing with the accused,

Jeetram. It is also worthwhile to observe that on the basis of

evidence on record, no presumption can be drawn under Section

304B of IPC against Rajji Ram and Mst. Samesta for the allegation
(17 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

of demand of dowry. Admittedly, out of 27 witnesses (whose

names were mentioned in the list of witnesses at the time of filing

the charge sheet) only 10 witnesses were produced before the

court and out of 10 witnesses, six witnesses are close relatives of

the deceased.

Upon perusal of statements of complainant, Nandram, and

his other relatives, we are of the opinion that their allegations for

demand of dowry are general in nature against Rajji Ram and Mst.

Samesta because they are brother and brother’s wife of main

accused, Jeetram. In our opinion, no presumption can be drawn

against them under Section 304B of IPC because neither they

were residing in the house of Jeetram, nor any trustworthy and

reliable evidence is on record so as to prove their implication to

commit cruelty against deceased Smt. Suman. It is true that

certain allegations are levelled by the complainant in the FIR for

demand of dowry with regard to behaviour of Rajji Ram and his

wife, acquitted by the trial court, but in our opinion, the trial court

has rightly assessed the entire evidence to acquit them from the

charges levelled against them. We have also considered the

argument of learned counsel for the appellant that, it is beyond

imagination that elder brother (Rajji Ram) will demand ten

thousand rupees from the younger brother’s wife and in-laws of

his brother and participate to commit offence of murder of his

younger brother’s wife.

The entire evidence loudly speaks that statements of all the

prosecution witnesses cannot be treated reliable or trustworthy so
(18 of 18)
[CRLA-640/2010]

as to hold accused, Rajji Ram and Mst. Samesta for offence under

Sections 304B and 498A of IPC because they were residing

separately and there is no specific allegation or any incident

reported in the statement of the prosecution witnesses for their

participation, upon general allegations no finding of cruelty can be

recorded against the respondents No.2 and 3, therefore, the D.B.

Criminal Appeal No.34/2011 filed by the complainant, Nandram,

lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

In view of above discussion, the D.B. Criminal Appeal

No.640/2010 filed by the appellant- Jeet Ram is hereby partly

allowed and while maintaining the conviction against the accused

appellant Jeet Ram under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, the

sentence of life imprisonment imposed against him for the offence

under Section 304-B of IPC, is hereby reduced to seven years’

rigorous imprisonment but conviction and sentence for the offence

u/s 498A of IPC is hereby maintained. The judgment impugned

dated 15.12.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT)

No.2, Hanumangarh HQ- Nohar, in Session Case No.96/2007

(6/2007) is, modified accordingly.

The D.B. Criminal Appeal No.34/2011 filed by complainant

against the acquittal of Rajji Ram and Smt. Samesta is hereby

dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J.

cpgoyal/ps