State Of Rajasthan vs Kamlesh Kumar on 13 September, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 228 / 2017
State of Rajasthan

—-Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Devi Lal Sen, Near Panchayat Samiti, Aasind,
Police Station Aasind, District Bhilwara.

—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
13/09/2017

By way of this application for grant of leave to appeal filed

under Section 378(iii) Cr.P.C., the State of Rajasthan craves leave

to file an appeal against the judgment dated 19.1.2017 passed by

learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara

in Session Case No. 1/2007 whereby the respondent Kamlesh

Kumar was acquitted from the charge under Section 304-B IPC.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned P.P.

and the learned counsel Mr. Menaria representing the respondent.

Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on

record.

Learned trial court, while acquitting the respondent from the

above charge convicted him for the offences under Sections 498A

and 306 IPC and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment.

The accused has preferred an appeal being S.B.Cr. Appeal No.
(2 of 3)
[CRLLA-228/2017]

130/2017 against his conviction.

Upon going through the record, a glaring fact is revealed

which totally rules out possibility of any interference in the

impugned judgment. The respondent Kamlesh Kumar was married

to Smt. Renu d/o Rodu Lal (complainant ). Smt. Renu ended her

life by committing suicide on 1.10.2006. The first informant Rodu

Lal submitted a complainant before the Addl. District Magistrate

(City), Bhilwara on 5.10.2006 alleging that his daughter had been

killed by her husband and in-laws because their demands of dowry

were not satisfied. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that his daughter

was married to the accused Kamlesh on 20.11.1999. However,

when examined Rodulal during trial as P.W. 5, he clearly stated

that marriage of Renu with the respondent accused was

solemnized on 20.9.1999. No attempt was made by the

prosecution to clarify and ascertain the exact date of marriage of

Smt. Renu with the respondent Kamlesh or to remove the

anomaly regarding the date of marriage. Even in the statement of

the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the question no. 5

which was put to him reads that P.W. 5 Rodu Lal stated that his

daughter married to Kamlesh on 20.9.1999. That being the

situation, apparently the prosecution failed to prove that the death

of Smt. Renu occurred with the period of seven years of her

marriage stipulated in Section 304B IPC.

That apart, I have examined the judgment dated 19.1.2017

passed by the trial court, acquitting the respondent from the

charge under Section 304B IPC and the evidence available on

record and find that the prosecution did not lead cogent
(3 of 3)
[CRLLA-228/2017]

convincing evidence to satisfy that the deceased was harassed or

humiliated by the respondent on account of demand of dowry

soon before her death. Manifestly, the evidence regarding death of

Smt. Renu being unnatural is also unconvincing. The prosecution

set up a case that the deceased consumed some poisonous

substance and committed suicide. As per the post mortem report

Ex.P-29 prepared by the Medical Board, the cause of death of

Smt. Renu was opined to be peripheral circulatory failure due to

natural death or poisoning. However, the final cause of death was

reserved to be given after receiving the F.S.L. report. The F.S.L.

report was exhibited by the defence as Ex.D-2. The said report

reads that viscera received in the case at hand gave negative tests

for any kind of poison whatsoever. In view of this significant

fact, apparently even the allegation of unnatural death of Smt.

Renu is questionable.

Consequently, I do not find any reason so as to entertain this

application for grant of leave to State of Rajasthan against the

judgment dated 19.1.2017 whereby the respondent was acquitted

from the offence under Section 304B IPC as the same does not

suffer from shortcoming either factual or legal so as to warrant

interference.

Resultantly, the instant application for leave to appeal is

dismissed as being devoid of merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

/sushil/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *