Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Arvind Kumar Tripathi and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Kamta Singh —Appellant
versus
State of U.P. —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.3538 of 2005
Decided on 14.7.2015
For the Appellant:Prashant Kumar Singh, Ved Kant Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A, 304B and 302 — Appellant got married to deceased in 1996 was harassing her for demand of Rs.20,000 and a motor bike and on the date of incident in 2000 while staying in house of father of deceased assaulted deceased with a brick and committed her murder — Appeal against conviction — Evidence showed that elder daughter of complainant was married to elder brother of appellant and deceased and appellant were introduced and wanted to marry but complainant opposed it and deceased and appellant married in a temple — Evidence proved that any formal marriage of deceased and appellant was never performed and both were living in live-in-relationship — Protection case that appellant was residing in house of complainant for about a month prior to incident but no independent evidence was produced to prove it — Complainant and his son claimed to be eye witness of assault on deceased by appellant but there was delay in lodging in FIR and it remained unexplained — Incident had occurred in second floor of house and none of witnesses or family member tried to catch accused — Conviction was liable to be set aside.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.8.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1. Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 1337 of 2000, State v. Kamta Singh under section 498-A, 304 B, 302 IPC, crime no. 391 of 2000, p.s. Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar by which sole accused-appellant was convicted for charge under section 498-A and 302 IPC.
2. The prosecution case before trial court in brief was that complainant Durga Singh lodged an FIR on 10.5.2000 at 18:50 am with the averment that he had married his daughter Madhu on 5.5.1996 with Kamta Singh. Soon after the marriage Madhu was treated with cruelty for dowry and demanded Rs. 20,000/- and a motorcycle and for this her husband Kamta Singh, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister of husband used to beat her. Then Madhu after taking particulars left the house of her husband and came to complainant’s house at 182/23 K-Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. There Madhu told about her harassment for demand of dowry. Madhu continued to reside with complainant Durga Singh. One day before Holi his son-in-law Kamta Singh came to his house and expressed regret and told that he would not demand dowry and would stay with complainant’s family and work there. Then complainant permitted accused Kamta to live there. 2-4 days before the incident, Kamta Singh had again demanded Rs. 20,000/- for doing some work and also threatened of dire consequences if he was not paid the amount. But his words were not taken seriously. On 9.5.2000 anytime in night Madhu screamed, hearing which complainant went there and saw that Kamta Singh was hitting Madhu with brick. On alarm complainant’s son Rajesh and wife also came there and raised alarm, then Kamta Singh fled away from the spot. Then complainant saw that Madhu was lying dead, and her body was socked with blood. Madhu was murdered for not fulfilling the dowry demand. Thus complainant Durga Singh had lodged a written report (Ex. K-1) after getting it written by scribe Raj Hans Singh, his son in law. On the basis of this written report case crime no. 391 of 2000 under section 498-A and 304 B was registered and investigation started.
3. The proceeding of inquest were performed by PW-5 Sri OP Singh, Addl. City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on 10.5.2000, who prepared inquest report Ex. K-5 and other documents Ex. K-6, 7, 8 and 9 and sent the dead body of Madhu for postmortem. Postmortem was conducted by two doctors on 10.5.2000 at 4.00 pm. Initially investigation was conducted by circle officer Nilesh Kumar. But after inclusion of section 302 IPC, the investigation was conducted and concluded by RP Singh, S.O. who had submitted charge sheet in the court against Kamta Singh.
4. Trail Court had charged accused appellant Kamta Singh for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty of charges and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of the charges prosecution side had examined PW-1 Durga Singh, the complainant. PW-2 Radha Singh (complainant’s wife), PW-3 Head Moharrir Ganga Charan, PW-4 Dr. O.N. Dwivedi, PW-5 O.P. Singh, Addl. City Magistrate, and PW-6 SR.P. Singh HO (IO). These witnesses had proved documentary evidences of prosecution side.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence statement of accused Kamta Singh was recorded in which he had denied his marriage with Madhu and stated that she used to live with him without marriage. Accused had denied the prosecution evidence and stated that witnesses had given false statement. Accused further told that he had never lived at the house of complainant. When he came Kanpur then came to know about murder of Madhu. The defence side had not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
7. We have heard the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA and perused the record and available evidence.
8. Prosecution case after evidence in brief was that elder daughter of complainant Durga Singh was married to
