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

2018 Supreme(All) 2322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, JJ.
Smt. Manju Devi (Jethani) And 2 Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.5315 of 2015
Decided on : 03-12-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sukhvir Singh, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence and consistency in witness testimony to prove charges of dowry demand, harassment, and unnatural death.

Headnote:

Dowry Demand - Criminal Law - 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC, 4 D.P. Act, 201 IPC - The court acquitted the accused-appellants of charges under Sections 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC, 4 D.P. Act, and 201 IPC due to lack of credible evidence of dowry demand, harassment, and unnatural death of the deceased. The court found discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witness, and the absence of a post-mortem report led to the conclusion that the death was due to natural causes.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was allegedly murdered by the accused-appellants due to a dowry demand for the purchase of a plot. The father of the deceased filed a report at the police station, alleging harassment and demand for dowry. The accused-appellants denied the allegations, claiming the deceased died due to illness and that the last rites were performed with the consent of the deceased's family.

Finding of the Court:

The court found discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witness and noted the absence of a post-mortem report. It concluded that the death was due to natural causes and acquitted the accused-appellants of all charges.

Issues: The main issues were the alleged dowry demand, harassment, and the cause of the deceased's death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of credible evidence of dowry demand, harassment, and unnatural death of the deceased. The absence of a post-mortem report and discrepancies in the prosecution witness's testimony led to the acquittal of the accused-appellants.

Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused-appellants of all charges due to lack of credible evidence and discrepancies in the prosecution witness's testimony.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.

1. Heard Sri M.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 1, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 2013 (State Vs. Krishna Kumar Yadav and others), whereby all the accused have been held guilty and awarded following punishment and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

3. The facts in brief of this case are as follows. PW-1-Har Narayan Yadav, who is father of the deceased-Sheela, had married his daughter in the year 2008 with the appellant-Krishna Kumar Yadav (appellant no. 3) S/o Yugul Kishor, after having given dowry as per his means but the said appellant and his family members were not satisfied with the same and were demanding more money to be given for purchase of plot in District-Ballia and for this they were continuously harassing his daughter as phone calls were being received regularly from his daughter's side in this regard and she used to say that she needed protection. PW-1-Har Nayaran Yadav, some times used to tell Yugul Kishor Yadav (father of Krishna Kumar Yadav), R/o Village-Bajra Ke Tola, P.S. Bairiya, that he should keep patience but he had started telling his daughter that her father had got the money of pension released and, hence he should procure money from him so that plot could be purchased. His daughter used to explain him that he had two other sisters and a brother, who were to be married and were being given education but being annoyed, Krishna Kumar Yadav (appellant no. 3), Ashok Yadav (appellant no. 2), (Jeth of the deceased) and Yugul Kishor (father-in-law of the deceased) and Smt. Manju Yadav (appellant no. 1), mother-in-law of the deceased, all together hatched conspiracy to eliminate his daughter in the intervening night of 19/20.8.2012 and finally murdered her and cremated her in company with their friends and, thereafter, sent information to the informants house and after receiving said information when the family members of the informant reached village Bajra Ke Tola, then the villagers there told that they had heard some noise in the house of accused-appellants but nothing much was revealed.

4. Having written this report (Ext. Ka-1), the same was given at P.S. Bairiya and Case Crime No. 316 of 2012, u/s 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered against Krishna Kumar Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Manju Devi, Yugul Kishor (father-in-law of the deceased), Indu Devi W/o Sri Narayan Yadav, Kamla Devi, all R/o of village Bairiya on 24.8.2012 at 09:40 a.m., chick F.I.R. of which is Ext. Ka-5 and entry of this case was made in G.D. (Ext. Ka-6) at report no. 16, time 9:40 hours on 24.8.2012 and the case was assigned to C.O. Alok Kumar Jaiswal (PW-6) for investigation in this case, who made inspection of the place of occurrence at the instance of informant and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka2). He after having perused marriage card, recorded statements of Ram Kumar Pandey, Pandit, who performed the marriage and witness Umesh Yadav, who was mediator of the marriage. On 26.9.2012, he recorded statements of Susheela Yadav (PW-4), Raju Yadav (PW-2), Fagu Yadav, Ishwar Dayal Yadav, Bakey Ram Yadav and accused Yugul Kishor Yadav, witness Ram Narayan Yadav, accused Kamli Devi (wife of the Yugul Kishor Yadav) and after having found sufficient evidence on record submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-3) against Krishna Kumar Yadav, Ashok Kumar Yadav and thereafter after having recorded statements of accused Manju Devi on 15.2.2013, the same day submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-4) against her also. The chick F.I.R. and the G.D. which were prepared by Constable Mohorrir Banarasi Ram, was also proved by PW-3, who had remained posted with him.

5.

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
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