Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 02.12.1994 passed by the Special Judge, Unnao in ST No. 386 of 1991 (State Vs. Amrit Lal and others) under Sections 498-A, 304 B IPC, Police Station Morawana, District Unnao by which accused Bachchu Lal and Saroj were acquitted for the charges levelled against them. Whereas accused Amrit Lal, Smt. Rajrani and Chilbil were found guilty and convicted for two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 498-A IPC and 10 years' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 304-B IPC with default stipulation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that informant Shiv Kumari lodged a written report on 14.02.1990 stating that her daughter Rakhi was married to Chilbil, son of accused Amrit Lal. She has given sufficient dowry in the marriage. On 11.01.1990 when the deceased came to her maternal house, she told to her parents that she was compelled to bring Rs.10,000/-, failing which she would be murdered. She also told her mother that the demand for one watch and a ring was also made. On 11.02.1990, the girl was taken away by her father-in-law. On 13.02.1990 at 4:00 PM all the in-laws of the deceased closed the door of room, sprinkled kerosene oil on her and done her to death. Husband of the deceased went to Kanpur, met Phool Chand Gupta and requested him to save him. Hence, the report was lodged. On the basis of this written report PW-6, Brij Kishore Bajpai scribed chik report which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-2. Further this witness proved the copy of GD as Ext. Ka-3. PW-5, Constable Ram Dularey carried corpse of the deceased for post-mortem. The Investigating Officer was not produced in evidence. However, four witnesses of fact were produced by the prosecution.

3. PW-1 is Shiv Kumari who proved the written report, which was marked as Ext. Ka-1.

4. PW-2 is Munnu Singh, who is neighbour of the informant. PW-3 is Phool Chand, cousin of the deceased and PW-4 is Rajjan Babu Gupta, brother of the deceased and son of the informant. Since the defence admitted the genuineness of the papers, hence the report of SI was marked as Ext. Ka-5, Ka-6, Ka-7. The inquest report was exhibited as Ka-8. The copy of GD entry relating to the death of deceased made on 13.02.1990 was marked as Ext. Ka-9. The letter by RI was marked as Ext. Ka-10. Photo of corpse was marked as Ext. Ka-11 and the post-mortem report was marked as Ext. Ka-12. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The surviving appellant Chilbil denied the occurrence and stated that at the time of occurrence he had gone to Kanpur to purchase clothes. Accused DW-1 was examined. He stated that the deceased committed suicide. He further stated that surviving appellant Chilbil was not present at the scene of the occurrence.

5. After hearing the arguments advanced by the parties and going through the material available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as narrated in para - 1 of the judgment.

6. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, the convicted accused appellants, namely, Chilbil, Rajrani and Amrit Lal preferred appeal before this Court. Smt. Rajrani and Amrit Lal died during the pendency of the appeal, hence the appeal in their context has abated.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for accused appellants, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the Trial Court record.

8. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has submitted that the judgment and order under appeal is bad in the eye of law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has further submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC and Section 304-B IPC and the learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality in convicting the accused appellants.

10. Per contra,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document