ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, JJ.
Kamlesh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3034 of 2010
Decided On : 06-06-2016
Dowry Death - Criminal Law - Section-498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction and sentencing of the accused-appellant Kamlesh under Section-498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act for the death of his wife Pushpa, who was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry demands and subsequently found dead under suspicious circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was guilty of demanding dowry, subjecting the deceased to cruelty, and causing her death within seven years of marriage. The court also noted the appellant's false defense and failure to explain the death of the deceased, leading to the conclusion of guilt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand of dowry, cruelty, and the suspicious death of the deceased, as well as the appellant's defense and failure to explain the circumstances of the death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from various judgments to establish the guilt of the appellant, including the essential ingredients of Section 304-B of the I.P.C., burden of proof and shifting of onus, and the relevance of the accused's conduct and false defense in circumstantial evidence cases.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, dismissing the appeal and directing compliance with the lower court's judgment.
Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J. –
Heard Shri Praveen Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
2. Instant appeal has arisen out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Sitapur on 01.11.2010 in Sessions Trial No. 842 of 2009, State v. Kamlesh and others, Case Crime No. 382/09, under Section-498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Machhrehata, District-Sitapur, whereby learned trial court has acquitted accused Siya Ram, Smt. Mithilesh and Shanti for the charges under Section-498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused appellant Kamlesh was convicted and sentenced under different sections as under : -
(i) Section 3 04-B, I.P.C. : - Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation of two months.
(ii) Section 4 98-A, I.P.C. : - Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation of two months.
(iii) Section 201, I.P.C. : - Rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation of six months.
(iv) Under Section-4 of Dowry Prohibition Act : - Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation of one month. All the sentences to run concurrently.
3. According to the prosecution version, marriage of Pushpa Devi, aged about 25 years, daughter of complainant Rajendra Kumar was performed with accused-appellant Kamlesh Kumar about four years from the date of occurrence. One Splendour Honda motorcycle along with other articles and a cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given in the marriage but mother of appellant Shanti Devi, elder brother Siya Ram, his wife Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and father Ram Autar were not satisfied and were demanding a Maruti 800 car in dowry. Complainant was not in a fit financial condition to meet out the demand. It is stated in First Information Report, which was lodged on 23.5.2009, that complainant was trying to talk to his daughter on phone for the last one month but every time appellant Kamlesh was taking a false excuse for not connecting the call to Pushpa. Then complainant went to Bahadurpur Kharg and met appellant. He asked him about Pushpa. Appellant told him that she has gone in a marriage along with all the family members. At that time appellant was alone in the house then complainant went to Sohan Lal who was mediator in the marriage and asked him about his daughter. Then he came to know that Pushpa is missing for the last one month. All the family members of appellant were also absconding. Complainant asked appellant to take him to his daughter then appellant told him that Pushpa is no more. When complainant insisted that dead body be shown to him then appellant took him to his new house and opened the lock and asked the complainant to come inside the house. Complainant got suspicious and made a call to his house but appellant ran away from there. Muskan, aged about two and half years daughter of Pushpa, was also missing. First Information Report was lodged by the complainant on 23.5.2009 which was registered at case crime no. 382/09, under section-498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section-3/4 Dowry Prohibition act.
4. Investigation was entrusted to Circle Officer Mishrikh. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Site plan of two houses of the appellant was prepared. On 29.5.2009, appellant was interrogated in police custody. On the pointing out of appellant, some bones of the dead body of Pushpa were recovered by the Investigating Officer near Betwa canal from Dhandhari forest which were sealed at the spot and recovery memo was prepared. Inquest proceedings were conducted on 29.5.2009 and bones were sealed and sent for postmortem. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. A.K. Mishra. Cause of death could not be ascertained, hence, bones and hair were kept in safe custody. On 07.6.2009, Kumari Muskan was recovered along with Siya Ram and Mithilesh
A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka
Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra
Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra
Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash
Joshinder Yadav v. State of Bihar
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Mehbub Samsuddin Malek v. State of Gujarat
Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana
Pathan Hussain Basha v. State of A.P.
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana
Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration)
Rajendra Singh v. State of Punjab
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat
Ravirala Laxmaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.