Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1068
[2010(4) ADJ 427 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA AND S.C. AGARWAL, JJ.
ANIL KUMAR ....Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Opposite Party
(Criminal Appeal No. 3731 of 2006, decided on 26th March, 2010)
Counsel :
S.P.S. Raghav, Anil Raghav, Richi Munjal and Vivek Yadav for the Appellant; A.G.A. for the Opposite Party.
Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder—Conviction—Sustainability of—Case based a circumstantial evidence—No direct evidence to connect appellant with murder of his wife—No reason to stand that a demand of dowry will be made after more than six years of marriage and birth three children—Only general allegations regarding demands of dowry by appellant—No specific detail were given—No FIR even lodged in respect of demand of dowry—No evidence to suggest as to which witness received telephone call regarding incident—No odour of kerosene oil found from dead body in post-mortem report—Mere recovery of kerosene oil can from kitchen not incriminating circumstance connecting appellant with crime—In present case appellant’s hands were found burnt and bandaged—No explanation from prosecution side—Deceased caught fire while cooking cannot be ruled out—No motive for crime—Conviction set aside. [Paras 40 and 41]
(B) Criminal Trial—Circumstantial evidence—When conviction can be based thereon—It is essential that chain of circumstances must be complete—Each circumstance must be fully proved by reliable evidence—Must point towards guilt of accused. [Para 15]
(C) Criminal Trial—Demand of dowry—What amounts to—When family of complainant whissed that deceased should not live in village—But, should live in Delhi—Therefore, half price of house was paid by mother-in-law of appellant to appellant for purchasing house—It cannot be treated to be a demand of dowry. [Para 20]
Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Gautam Budh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2003, whereby the appellant Anil Kumar was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The incident took place on 20.10.2002 at about 7:00 p.m. in Azad Vihar Khoda Colony, P.S. Sector 58, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The F.I.R. exhibit Ka-1 was lodged by the complainant Roop Chand (P.W. 1) on the same day at P.S. Sector 58, NOIDA at 21:10 hours. Distance of police station from the place of occurrence is 3 kilometers.
3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the deceased Renu, the sister of complainant Roop Chand, was married with the appellant Anil Kumar about 6-1/2 years ago. After marriage, Anil Kumar used to harass Renu on account of demand of dowry. On 20.10.2002 at 7:00 p.m., a neighbour of the appellant informed the complainant by telephone that Anil Kumar had beaten Renu and murdered her by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her afire. The complainant and his family members reached the house of the appellant and found dead body of Renu lying in the kitchen.
4. On the basis of written report Exhibit Ka-1, case Crime No. 574 of 2002 under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.A and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the appellant by Constable Clerk Yadram Singh (P.W. 8)
5. On 21.10.2002 Satya Prakash Sharma, Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Ghaziabad (P.W. 7) conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Renu. He prepared inquest memo Exhibit Ka-5 and other necessary papers, sealed the dead body and sent it for autopsy through Constables Sarvesh Kumar and Faujdar Singh.
6. Sri Ram Badan Singh, C.O. City-I, NOIDA (P.W. 6) commenced the investigation on 22.10.2002. He arrested the accused, recorded the statements of the witnesses and found that more than 7 years had elapsed since the marriage of the deceased and, therefore, the case was converted under Sections 302 and 120-B, I.P.C. and thereafter on 17.4.2003 the investigation was handed over to S.O., P.S. Sector 58, NOIDA Sri Santosh Kumar (P.W. 5), who after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-4 against Anil Kumar and charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-8 against his mother Kiran Devi under Sections 302 and 120-B, I.P.C.
7. Autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Renu was performed on 22.10.2002 at 3:00 p.m. by Dr. A. Mishra (P.W. 4) of District Hospital, Ghaziabad. The deceased was about 25 years of age. Death was caused about 2 days before the post-mortem examination. Rigor mortis was present in lower limb only. There were superficial to deep burn all over the body except both feet in 90% area. On internal examination, 100 ml. semi digestive food was found in the stomach.
8. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused on account of shock and haemorrhage due to superficial to deep burn over 90% area of the body. Post-mortem report is exhibit ka-3. The death of Smt. Renu could have been caused on 20.10.2002 at 7:00 p.m.
9. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant and charge under Section 302/34 and 120-B, I.P.C. was framed against co-accused Kiran Devi. Both the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
10. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in this case. Roop Chand (P.W. 1), Praveen (P.W. 3) are the brothers and Smt. Shakuntala (P.W. 2) is the mother of the deceased. They are not eye-witnesses, but gave evidence regarding demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased by the appellant. Dr. A.K. Mishra (P.W. 4) had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Ram Badan Singh (P.W. 6) and Santosh Kumar (P.W. 5) are the Investigating Officers. Satya Pr
