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

2019 Supreme(All) 494

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Mahesh Patel - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1878 of 2017
Decided On : 18-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Anand Kumar Singh, Adv., Ashish Kumar Singh, Adv., Manvendra Singh, Adv., Pradeep Kumar Singh, Adv., Satyendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

Headnote:

Penal Code,1860 – sections 304B, 498A and 201 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 2 – Offence of murder – Appeal against conviction – Whether Murder proved beyond doubt – Challenging trial court order – Challenged – Appeal – Held, All these three witnesses of fact by their testimonies, in over all appreciation of them, could not prove charge beyond reasonable doubt – Rest of the witnesses are formal witnesses having proved police investigation, medical examination, etc. etc. establishing death of deceased as murder but commission of cruelty or dowry death by convict appellant could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt – The Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it – Hence this appeal merits its allowance – Appeal is allowed and appellant acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. [Paras 36 and 37]

Facts of the case:

This Criminal Appeal under Sections 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed by convict appellant Mahesh Patel against judgment of conviction and sentence under sections 304B, 498A, 201 I.P.C. and 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi, whereby the convict appellant has been sentenced with seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 304B I.P.C., one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C., one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence punishable u/s 201 I.P.C. and one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence punishable u/s 4 D.P. Act with direction for concurrent running of sentences and adjustment of previous imprisonment, if any, in this case crime, and in default of payment of fine one month's additional imprisonment has to be served.

Findings of the case:

All these three witnesses of fact by their testimonies, in over all appreciation of them, could not prove charge beyond reasonable doubt – Rest of the witnesses are formal witnesses having proved police investigation, medical examination, etc. etc. establishing death of deceased as murder but commission of cruelty or dowry death by convict appellant could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt – The Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it – Hence this appeal merits its allowance – Appeal is allowed and appellant acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

Result: Appeal is allowed

JUDGMENT :

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal under Sections 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed by convict appellant Mahesh Patel against judgment of conviction and sentence made therein dated 30.3.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 1, Varanasi, in S.T. No. 93 of 2015, State of U.P. Vs. Mahesh Patel and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 436 of 2014, under sections 304B, 498A, 201 I.P.C. and 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi, whereby the convict appellant has been sentenced with seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 304B I.P.C., one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C., one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence punishable u/s 201 I.P.C. and one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence punishable u/s 4 D.P. Act with direction for concurrent running of sentences and adjustment of previous imprisonment, if any, in this case crime, and in default of payment of fine one month's additional imprisonment has to be served.

2. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for appellant, and Sri N. K. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. Perused the lower court's record.

3. Prosecution case, which surfaced from record, was that an information by one Shrichand Bind, a representative of Gram Pradhan of Village Ganj Khwaja, police station Alinagar, district Chandauli, was submitted at Police Station Alinagar, District Chandauli, on 01.11.2014 at 11.45 A.M. that a dead body of unknown lady, aged about 28 years, was lying in a paddy field, within the area of village Ganj Khawaja at a distance of about 4 Kms. towards east from the police station. Upon this information inquest proceeding of dead body of an unknown woman, aged about 28 years, religion Hindu, was got conducted by Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Alinagar, after taking witnesses Shrichand Bind, Smt. Kewla Devi, Manoj Kumar, Ram Vilas and Ganga Prasad on 01.11.2014 at 13.05 hours and this was found to be a case in which no apparent injury was there on the person of deceased and even after effort identification of the dead body could not be established, hence for determining real cause of death autopsy examination was needed, for which relevant police papers were got prepared and dead body under sealed intact position was sent for autopsy examination.

4. Autopsy examination, on dead body, brought by police of P.S. Alinagar, District Chandauli, was got conducted on 02.11.2014 at 4.00 P.M., in which ante-mortem injuries were found with finding of death owing to ante-mortem throttling and thereafter asphyxia resulting death. On the basis of postmortem report, vide G.D. Entry No. 35 at about 13.15 hours of 13.5.2014, Case Crime No. 372 of 2014, u/s 302, 201 I.P.C., was got lodged against unknown person at P.S. Alinagar, District Chandauli, and investigation was deputed to S.O. Anup Kumar Yadav of P.S. Alinagar, District Chandauli.

5. On 09.11.2014 computerized typed report under signature of Ramji Singh, Advocate, was submitted before Station Officer, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi, that his daughter Sunita Patel was married on 7.5.2011 with Mahesh Patel, son of Rajnarayan Patel, resident of Village Govindpur, P.S. Rohaniya, district Varanasi, as per Hindu rituals and dowry, as per capacity, was given in the marriage to Mahesh Patel. As his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage, they were making complaint and torturing Sunita Patel for additional dowry. This was complained by Sunita Patel to her parents as well as her elder brother. Besides this Mahesh Patel and his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Aarti, wife of Sanjay Patel were repeatedly demanding additional dowry through telephonic call and many times it was fulfilled. Mahesh Patel was persuaded that his repeated demand may not be fulfil













































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top