Court No. - 60 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 762 of 2015 Appellant :- Ramkumari Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Rathore,S.K. Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate AND Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 400 of 2015 Appellant :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Rathore,S.K. Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate AND Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 854 of 2015 Appellant :- Satish Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Rathore,S.K. Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra,J.
[1] As all these three abovesaid criminal appeals are directed against the same judgment and order arising out of the same Case Crime No. 350 of 2013 and Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2013, all are being disposed of by this common judgment.
[2] Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
[3] The appellants have been convicted for eight years rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 306 IPC under the impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jalaun in S.T. No. 128 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 350 of 2013 police station-Kalpi, district-Jalaun.
[4] As per the prosecution story, on 21.04.2013, complainant-Raja Singh handed over a written report to the In-charge Police Station-Kalpi, District- Jalaun, with the averments therein that the marriage of his daughter- Gudiya(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was performed with appellant- Satish Chandra on 31.05.2012 in which sufficient dowry, as per the economic capacity of complainant's family, was provided but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry provided and were further demanding a golden chain and a ring as an additional dowry. On so many occasions, the appellants chased their demand and when the demand was not fulfilled, they started harassing and torturing the deceased and ultimately killed her on 11.04.2013. On getting the information of death of her daughter-Gudiya, the complainant along with his family members reached on the spot and found her dead there.
[5] In the instant case, the FIR was lodged on 21.04.2013 i.e. ten days after the death of the deceased. On 12.04.2013, the inquest memo of the deceased was prepared and her postmortem was also conducted. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated. The Investigating Officer, after collecting the entire evidence, submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 498-A, 304 B IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act.
[6] Charges under Sections 498-A, 304B in alternative 302/34 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act were framed against the accused persons. They denied the charges and claimed trial.
[7] In support of the charges, prosecution examined PW-1, Raja Singh (complainant), PW-2, Smt. Maya Devi(mother of the deceased), PW-3, Mohar Singh (uncle of the deceased) and PW-4, Lalta as witnesses of facts.
PW-5, Naib Tehsildar Ram Shanker performed the formalities with regard to the inquest memo. PW-6, Constable Vrindavan Singh lodged the FIR and made its entry into the G.D. PW-7, Dr. Basant Lal performed the autopsy on the body of the deceased and opined the cause of death as Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging while PW-8 investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet.
[8] Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they categorically said that neither they had demanded any dowry nor the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of it. They further said that the deceased was obstinate and superstitious and on account of it, she committed suicide.
[9] PW-1, Raja Singh(father of the deceased) supported the prosecution version in his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination, the witness turned hostile and said that none of the appellants had ever demanded any dowry. It is further admitted by this witness that he was present at the time of inquest memo of the deceased and have also attended her last rites. When interrogated by the prosecution as to why he has changed his version in the cross-examination, the witness said that his earlier statement was given under the pressure of the police. PW-2, Smt. Maya Devi(mother of the deceased), PW-3, Mohan Singh(uncle of the deceased) and PW-4, Lalta also did not support the prosecution version. All these witnesses have specifically said that neither any demand of dowry was raised from the side of the appellants nor the deceased was ever tortured by the appellants. It is further admitted by all these prosecution witnesses particularly the parents of the deceased that the deceased was obstinate and superstitious. She had also tried a suicidal attempt even before her marriage. It is also admitted by these witnesses that when they reached on the spot after receiving the information about the death of their daughter, they found the room bolted from inside. It is an admitted fact that the deceased committed suicide after bolting the door of her bedroom from inside. When the Investigating Officer was questioned on this point, he said that he did not inquire into this aspect as to whether the deceased committed suicide after bolting the door of her bedroom from inside.
[10] The conviction under the impugned judgment is based only on the ground that the appellants have failed to discharge the burden as provided under Section 106 IPC. It is presumed by the trial court that the facts which were within the knowledge of the appellants were not explained satisfactorily by them with regard to the reasons of the suicide.
[11] Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, it is specifically stated that the deceased was obstinate and superstitious and on account of it, she committed suicide. The prosecution witness particularly the parents of the deceased also supported the said defence version of the appellants. Hence, in these circumstances, it can be said that the appellants were successful in discharging their burden. No evidence with regard to the abetment to commit suicide could be led from the side of the prosecution, therefore, convicting the appellants under Section 306 IPC is not proper. The appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order dated 13.01.2015 is liable to be set aside.
[12] On the basis of abovesaid discussion, the criminal appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2015 passed against the appellants is set-aside. All the appellants are already on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
[13] Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the case be sent to the court below for needful action and necessary entries in the relevant registers.
Order Date :- 29.03.2018 sumit s