Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Pritinker Diwaker, Rajeev Misra, JJ.
Bablu @ Narendra Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 5908 of 2009
Decided On : 30-5-2019
The court upheld the conviction of the accused under sections 304 B, 498A IPC, and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof by leading evidence to bring home the charge alleged against the accused and had also established its stand. The court also found that the accused had failed to answer the various tests required to be answered for dislodging the charge under section 304 B IPC. The court modified the sentence awarded by the lower court, reducing it from life imprisonment to 12 years cumulative sentence. The court also directed the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased within a period of six months from the date of the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under sections 304 B, 498A IPC, and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for causing the death of his wife within seven years of marriage due to cruelty and harassment for dowry. The accused appealed the conviction, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against him and that the sentence was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof by leading evidence to bring home the charge alleged against the accused and had also established its stand. The court also found that the accused had failed to answer the various tests required to be answered for dislodging the charge under section 304 B IPC. The court modified the sentence awarded by the lower court, reducing it from life imprisonment to 12 years cumulative sentence. The court also directed the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased within a period of six months from the date of the judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof to bring home the charge alleged against the accused under section 304 B IPC? 2. Whether the accused had successfully dislodged the charge under section 304 B IPC? 3. Whether the sentence awarded by the lower court was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof by leading evidence to bring home the charge alleged against the accused. The court noted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was consistent and specific, and that the accused had failed to dislodge their testimony during cross-examination. The court also found that the prosecution had proved the motive behind the occurrence by adducing evidence of the cruelty and harassment suffered by the deceased at the hands of the accused. 2. The court held that the accused had failed to answer the various tests required to be answered for dislodging the charge under section 304 B IPC. The court noted that the accused had not offered any explanation for the death of his wife, and that his defense was inconsistent with the evidence on record. 3. The court held that the sentence awarded by the lower court was excessive. The court noted that the accused was a first-time offender and that there were no aggravating circumstances in the case. The court also considered the fact that the accused had already spent a significant amount of time in jail.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused under sections 304 B, 498A IPC, and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court modified the sentence awarded by the lower court, reducing it from life imprisonment to 12 years cumulative sentence. The court also directed the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased within a period of six months from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Misra, J.
1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the judgement and order dated 24.8.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Court No. 7, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 639 of 1999 (State Vs. Bablu @ Narendra Singh). Under the impugned judgement and order, the accused appellant Bablu @ Narendra Singh has been convicted under section 304 B I.P.C. and consequently sentences to life imprisonment. He has also been convicted under section 498 A IPC but by reason of the judgement reported in 2005 (52) ACC 1912, Sunil Garg Vs. State of U.P., he has not been sentenced under section 498 A IPC. The accused appellant has further been convicted under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 15,000/-. In default, the accused appellant is to undergo three months additional imprisonment. Lastly, the accused appellant has been convicted under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As such, he has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In case of default, the appellant is to undergo three months additional imprisonment.
2. It transpires from the record that the marriage of appellant Bablu @ Narendra Singh was solemnized with Babita (deceased) on 1.12.1995 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of five months and fifteen days from the date of marriage, an unfortunate incident occurred on 15.5.1996, in which Babita the wife of the appellant died. It is the nature of death of the deceased Babita which is required to be dealt with in this appeal.
3. Vijay Singh, a neighbour of the accused-appellant submitted a written report dated 15.5.1996 of the aforesaid occurrence at Police Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr. P.W. 3 H.M Rajveer Singh entered the written report dated 15.5.1996 in the G.D. vide report No. 34 dated 15.5.1996. He, thereafter, scribed the check F.I.R. dated 15.5.1996 (Ext. Ka-2) which was registered as Case Crime No. 63 of 1996, under section 302 IPC, P.S. Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr.
4. A perusal of the F.I.R. will go to show that the same has been lodged by the first informant Vijay Singh, against unknown persons. The date, time and place of occurrence as mentioned in the F.I.R. is 15.5.1996 at 7:00 pm in the house of the deceased (Babita) which is situate in village Pipala, P.S. Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr. The F.I.R. also contains the details regarding the time and date of the lodging of the F.I.R which is 8:45 pm on 15.5.1996. S.I.-H.C. Panda (P.W.7) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
5. After the lodging of the F.I.R. dated 15.5.1996, the Police of Police Station Aurangabad came into motion. P.W. 7, S.I.-H.C. Panda who was appointed as the Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation of the aforesaid case crime number. After completing the formalities of entering the written report and the F.I.R. in the case diary, he recorded the statement of the scribe of the F.I.R. namely, P.W.3 Rajveer Singh the first informant Sanjay Singh. Therefore, accompanied by the first informant, he visited the place of occurrence and inspected the same. He, accordingly noted the inspection memo dated 15.5.1996 in the case diary and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext. Ka-11). He also recovered plain earth and earth mixed with blood from the place of occurrence and sealed them separately. He also recovered the bed sheet which was having blood stains. The same was sealed. He also recovered broken pieces of bangles of the deceased which were also sealed. In respect of the above, he prepared the recovery memo dated 15.5.1996 (Ext. Ka-12). The aforesaid recovery is witnessed by one Chote Lal Sharma.
6. After completing the aforesaid formalities P.W.4, S.I. Ram Gopal Yadav took possession of the dead body. He, thereafter appointed the panch witnesses namely, Chote Lal Sharma, Gyan Sharma,
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
