SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 957

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : UMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
Smt. SAWARIYA AND OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Respondent
(Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2003, decided on 11th May, 2018)

Advocates:
Counsel :
R.B. Sahai and Amrish Sahai for the Appellants; A.G.A. for the Respondent.

Headnote:(Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3/4 – Dowry death – Conviction – No specific role has been assigned to accused persons for demand of dowry – General allegation of demanding dowry has been made against husband, his mother, father, brother and maternal uncle – Unless specific allegation has been made, all relatives of husband should not be made responsible for demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment – On same evidence and general allegations, Trial Court has acquitted co-accused ‘P’ – And, prosecution has not shown, even by preponderance of probability, that soon before her death, deceased was treated with cruelty or harassed by accused persons in connection with demand of dowry – It is not proved that death of deceased was caused otherwise than under normal circumstances – Conviction set aside. [Paras 19, 20 and 21]

       Result; Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Sri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A., for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Sessions Judge, E.C. Act, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 287 of 1999 (State v. Arjun and others), P.S. Khakhreru, District Fatehpur whereby accused/appellants Smt. Sawariya, Siroman, Pheran and Arjun were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 Indian Penal Code (in short referred to as “IPC”) & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (in short referred to as “D.P. Act”) and sentenced to :

(i) rigorous imprisonment for a period seven years under Section 304-B IPC,

(ii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 498-A IPC,

(iii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 201 IPC and

(iv) rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

3. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. By the judgment and order accused Prabhu was acquitted from the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

5. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 10.5.1999 informant Ramphal has submitted written information to Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur with allegation that his daughter Sangeeta (now deceased) was married with appellant Arjun three years ago. After her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home. When she returned to her parental home from matrimonial home, told the informant that her husband (Arjun), father-in-law (Shiroman), mother-in-law (Smt. Sawariya) and brother-in-law (jeth) were demanding Buffalo and Rs. 20,000/- cash in dowry. She was beaten and subjected to cruelty and harassed for demand of dowry by them. On 7.5.1999 at about 11:00 PM appellants and co-accused Prabhu, brother-in-law (sala) of appellant (Shiroman) have killed deceased (Sangeeta). At that time, Sangeeta was crying in defence. Her hue and cry was heard by Smt. Awadh Rani W/o Chhedu, Pradhan s/o Heera, Dharmpal s/o Shiv Lal and Neeta Devi daughter of informant Ramphal and other villagers. On Saturday informant (Ramphal) got information about death of Sangeeta. He reached at her matrimonial home where accused persons threatened him and compelled to leave the spot. The dead body of Smt. Sangeeta was lying in river Yamuna. On this information, by order of Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, a First Information Report against the above named accused was lodged on 11.5.1999 at 11:00 PM at Police Station Khakhreru, District Fatehpur at Crime No. 41 of 1999 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Dead body of deceased was recovered on 11.5.1999 at 5:30 PM at bank of river Yamuna in village Chandanapur. On the same day, inquest report and relevant police papers were prepared by the Investigating Officer. Post mortem of the deceased Smt. Sangeeta was conducted on 12.5.1999 at 2:45 PM by Dr. S.S. Banerjee. As per post-mortem report, dead body of deceased was badly decomposed. There was no any injury visible on the person of deceased. Cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. In her viscera report, no chemical poison was detected. As per report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, no poison was found in her viscera. After investigation police has submitted charge-sheet against appellants and co-accused Prabhu.

6. Learned Trial Court has framed charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act against appellants Smt. Sawariya, Siroman, Pheran and Arjun and co-accused Prabhu and explained charge to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To substantiate charge against accused, prosecution has examined PW-1 Ramphal, PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi as witnesses of fact and PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Idris, PW-4 Head Constable Laik Ahmad, PW-5 Naib Tehsildar Sidh Narain Mishra, PW-6 Inspector K.L. Savita, PW-7 First Inves
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top