Court No. - 47
Reserved on 24.2.2018 Delivered on 25.4.2018 Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 1542 of 2011 Appellant :- Jugendra Pali Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail Counsel for Respondent :- G.R.S.Pal
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan, J)
1. This jail appeal is filed by the appellant Jugendra Pali against the judgment and order dated 1.2.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Bareilly in ST No. 573 of 2007, State Vs. Jugendra Pali, Crime No. 783 of 2006 under section 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC, police station Sirauli, district Bareilly.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 1.2.2011, the appellant Jugendra Pali has been convicted under section 498-A, 304 B and 201 IPC and acquitted under section 302 IPC. Accused appellant was sentenced for the life imprisonment under section 304-B, for the rigorous imprisonment of 2 years under section 498-A with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo additional imprisonment for 4 months under section 201 IPC. The appellant has been sentenced for the rigorous imprisonment of 2- years with fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, accused-appellant has been directed to undergo additional imprisonment of 2 months. It has also been provided that all the sentences will run concurrently and the period the appellant-accused already detained in jail in this case shall be adjusted in the sentence.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 14.11.2006 Ram Singh lodged an FIR at police station Sirauli, district Bareilly with this facts that he is resident of Jalalpur, police station Bisauli, district Budaun. He married his daughter Somwati 5-6 years ago with Jugendra Pali, son of Raj Kumar, R/0 Chandrapura, police station Sirauli, district Bareilly. Just after the marriage, the husband Jugendra Pali started torturing Somwati for the demand of a Motorcycle. Complainant said so many times to Jugendra Pali that he is a poor person and he is not in a position to give a motorcycle. Jugendra Pali continued torturing and beating Somwati for motorcycle and on 2.11.2006, Jugendra Pali murdered Somwati. Till now he was searching for her body. Today he came to know that the dead body of his daughter Somwati is lying in the sugarcane field of Bandhu Ram. So many persons of the village have seen Jugendra Pali taking Somwati to the field of Sugercane. On the basis of this FIR, the case was registered and its entry was made in the General Diary and the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer and after investigation I.O submitted the charge sheet under section 498-A, 304-
B, 201 IPC against accused appellant Jugendra Pali.
4. The charge under section 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC was framed against the appellant and in alternative charge under section 302 IPC was also framed against the accused-appellant which he denied and demanded for trial.
5. Prosecution examined the nine witnesses, Ram Singh (PW-1), Rameshwar (PW-2), Shankar Lal (PW-3), Constable Vinod (PW-4), Dr. Anil Kumar Parashar (PW-5), Dy. S.P. Sri Ram Murat Yadav (PW- 6), Ranjeet Singh (PW-7), Hari Singh @ Harish (PW-8) and Savitri (PW-9). In the documentary evidence, the prosecution filed Tahrir Vadi (Ex-Ka-1), Inquest Report (Ex- Ka-2), Specimen Seal (Ex-Ka- 3), Proforma No. 13 (Ex-Ka-4),. Statement of Dr. Anil Kumar Parashar (Ex-Ka-5), Chitthi CMO (Ex-Ka-6) and Chitthi R.I. (Ex. Ka- 7), postmortem report (Ex-Ka-8), site Plan (Ex-Ka-9) and Charge sheet (Ex-Ka-10).
6. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He stated that he has been implicated falsely in this case. Near about 1 and ½ months ago of this incident, he went to Punjab and was residing in Punjab. Ram Autar who is son of his maternal uncle informed him about this incident, then he came back to his home. He denied the prosecution case.
7. Out of nine prosecution witnesses, Ram Singh (PW-1) is the complainant as well as the father of the deceased Somwati. Rameshwar (PW-2) is the brother of Deceased, Shankar Lal (PW-3) is the maternal uncle of the deceased, Ranjeet Singh (PW-7) is the husband of the sister of the deceased Somwati, Hari Singh @ Harish (PW-8) is the brother of the brother-in-law of deceased. Smt Savitri (PW-9) is the elder sister of Somwati. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-7, PW- 8 and PW-9 are the witnesses of the facts. They have supported the version of prsecution. PW-4, Constable Pramod Kumar is the witness of inquest report, PW-5 – Dr. Anil Kumar Prashar has conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Somwati and prepared the postmortem report and PW-6 is the Investigating Officer of this case.
8. On the basis of this evidence, learned lower court convicted the accused appellant under section 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC vide its judgment dated 1.2.2011.
9. Being aggrieved with this judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that impugned judgment is bad in the eye of law and is passed without appreciation of evidence.
10. Heard Sri Jitendra Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae and learned AGA.
11. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there is no evidence on the record to show that soon before the death of Somwati the demand of dowry was made. We disagree with this argument because all the witnesses of the facts have stated that Jugendra Pali, the appellant, demanded a motorcycle in dowry which could not be fulfilled. In this regard statement of PW-7 Ranjeet and PW-9 Savitra is most relevant. PW-9 Savitri is the real sister of deceased Somwati. She is married in the same village Chandpura where Somwati was married. PW-9 Savitri is the real sister-in-law (Sali) of accused. PW-7 Ranjeet Singh is the husband of PW-9 Savitri. Accused appellant Jugendra Pali, PW- 9 Savitri and PW-7 Ranjeet Singh are the resident of the same village i.e. Chandpura. PW-7 Ranjeet Singh in his statement has stated that Jugendra Pali used to torture her sister-in-law (Somwati) and used to demand motorcycle from his wife. In this regard Somwati made a complaint to him. He and the in-laws of Jugendra Pali tried to persuaded him not to demand the motorcycle but he paid no heed and continued to torture Somwati for motorcycle. Four years ago Jugendra Pali took Somwati to collect mallet in his presence as well as in the presence of Savitri and brother Hari Singh. After that Somwati never came back alive. PW-9 Savitri has also stated that Jugendra Pali used to demand motorcycle and hand pump from Somwati and her father. She tried to persuade him so many times but he did not agree. Four years ago in the morning Jugendra Pali came out of his home with Somwati quarreling with each other. They reached to their mallet field On the way they continued to quarrel with each other. She was following them as her field is after the field of Jugendra. She asked them not to quarrel. In the evening she heard that the wife of Jugendra is missing. This evidence is sufficient to establish that the accused Jugenera Pali made demand of motorcycle in dowry soon before the death and was torturing Somwati in this regard.
12. Learned Amicus Curiae advanced his second argument that at the time of occurrence, he was in Punjab and that is why Jugendra Pali could be arrested on 16.11.2006 while the FIR was lodged on 14.11.2006. In our opinion, this argument is not going to benefit the accused-appellant on two grounds. Firstly, if the accused is arrested two days after lodging of the FIR, it does not mean that he was not present at his home or in his village on the date of lodging of the FIR. Secondly, the accused-appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that at the time of occurrence he was in Punjab and he had gone to Punjab near about 1 and ½ months ago of this incident. On the other hand, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 have stated that in the morning of the date of occurrence they saw Jugendra taking Somwati from his home to the field of millet. PW-7 and PW-9 are the resident of the same village Chandpura where accused-appellant resides.
13. Learned Amicus Curiae advanced his next argument that accused- appellant is a poor person and the demand for motorcycle is unnatural for him. If he had wanted to demand anything then he would have demanded money from Somwati or her in-laws. This argument is not tenable. It has no sense that poor person can not demand for motorcycle.
14. Learned Amicus Curiae advanced the next argument that no complaint prior to this FIR was made by the complainant before police or any authority regarding demand of dowry. Thus it cannot be said that any demand was made by the accused-appellant. We do not agree with this argument of Amicus Curiae because the father, mother and family members of the married daughter generally do not lodge complaint against son-in-law and always try to save the marriage bond of their girl and make all possible efforts to conciliate the matter.
15. It is also worth mentioning that the accused-appellant has tried to disappear and remove the evidence of the death of Somwati because the dead body of Somwati was burried in the field. PW-9 has also stated that she send the information of missing of her sister to her father. Her father and maternal uncle reached to Chandrapur. They searched Somwati when her father and maternal uncle asked to Jugndra about Somwati then he replied that I do not know and then again he said she had run away. It proves that accused-appellant have tried to disappear the evidence of the death of Somwati.
16. A person may tell a lie but the circumstances never tells lie. In this case Somwati was missing from 2.11.2006 from her matrimonial home and the accused-appellant Jugendra Pali did not lodge any FIR at the police station regarding missing of his wife. He even did not inform in this regard to family members of Somwati. It shows the guilty intention of the accused-appellant.
17. In the last learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the accused- appellant is a poor person and he is the sole bread earner of family, he has a son and nobody is there to lookafter him. The sentence awarded to the accused-appellant is too severe and he should be awarded lesser punishment. The accused-appellant is in jail since 16.11.2006.
18. From the statement of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-7, PW-8 and PW- 9, it is proved that the marriage of Somwati was solminized with the accused-appellant Jugendra Pali 5-6 years before her death. Soon before her death the accused-appellant demanded motorcycle from her in dowry and on non-fulfillment of his demand he used to torture his wife Somwati too. As per postmortem report, at the time of her death, Somwati was 26-years old and in the postmorterm Asphyxia due to anti mortem strangulation is mentioned as cause of the death which establishes that Somwati was died of unnatural death. The dead body of Somwati was burried in the sugarcane field. PW-2 in his statement has said that when he reached Chandpura and did not find Somwati there then he asked about Somwati and he was told that she would have gone to Jalalpur. Hearing it he came back to his village Jalalpur and informed Ram Singh (PW-1), the father of Somwati that he did not see Somwati at the home of Jugendra Pali then his father went to Chandrapura and stayed there for 5-6 days until the dead body of Somwati was not recovered. This facts shows that accused-appellant also tried to remove the evidence of death of Somwati but there is no direct evidence of murder in this case.
19. On the basis of above discussion, we come to the conclusion that no offence under section 302 IPC is proved but the offense under section 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant Jugendra Pali, but the punishment awarded by the trial court is too severe. Thus in our opinion the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and it is accordingly partly allowed. The accused-appellant Jugendra Pali is acquitted from the charge under section 302 IPC, but he is convicted under section 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC. Under section 304-B IPC, he is sentenced for the rigorous imprisonment of 11 years and the offense under section 498-A, he is sentenced for the rigorous imprisonment of 2-years with fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, he will undergo additional imprisonment for three months and under section 201 IPC, he is sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of 2-years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he will undergo the additional imprisonment of 2-months.
20. All the sentences will run concurrently and the period already undergone by the accused-appellant in jail in this case shall be adjusted in his sentence.
21. Lower court record be sent back to the court concerned alongwith a certified copy of this order for compliance. Sri Jitendra Pandey has argued the case as an amicus curiae. He be paid Rs. 10,000/- as his fee for arguing the case finally.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 SKS