IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Anand Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2018
Decided On : 20-11-2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL - DOWRY DEATH - Code of Criminal Procedure - 498A, 304B I.P.C and 4 D. P. Act - Summary: The appellant, Anand Babu, filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence for offences under sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. read with section 4 D. P. Act. The court found that the deceased, Savita, died under unnatural circumstances due to antemortem injuries caused by cruelty and harassment for dowry. The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, and concluded that the judgment of conviction was based on evidence and supported by it. The court also found that the sentencing of the appellant was commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed by convict appellant Anand Babu against judgment of conviction and sentence made therein dated 4.6.2018 passed by Court of Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in S.T. No. 288 of 2014, State Vs. Anand Babu and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 724 of 2014, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C and 4 D. P. Act, P.S. Jahanabad, District Pilibhit.
2. In brief, memo of appeal contends that the trial court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it. There was no evidence against appellant. Marriage between deceased and appellant, was solemnized on 8.6.2014, in a simple manner with no dowry nor any demand at the time of marriage or subsequent to marriage. No evidence with regard to demand of dowry or cruelty with regard to it was there on record. Spouse were living happily and no complaint, in any manner, was there prior to present incident. Both families were farmers, having no status to claim or fulfill demand of dowry. Both of witnesses were declared hostile and they have not supported prosecution, even then impugned judgment of conviction with deterrent sentence was passed. Autopsy examination report reveals cause of death due to head injury and it was an accident. But learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, failed to appreciate the facts and law placed on record. Hence this appeal for setting aside impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made therein with further prayer for acquittal from charges levelled against appellant.
3. Perusal of impugned judgment and record of lower court reveals that F.I.R. (Ext. Ka1), chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka2) of Case Crime No. 724 of 2014, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C and 4 D. P. Act, P.S. Jahanabad, District Pilibhit, dated 29.6.2014 registered at 17.35 hours, for an occurrence of 27.6.2014, having no specific mention of time upon F.I.R. having computerised typing and signature of complainant Sunil Kumar over it (Ext. Ka1) against Anand Babu (husband), Shakuntala Devi (mother-in-law), Guddu Joshi (brother-in-law), Vijay Joshi (brother-in-law), Shanker (brother-in-law-Bahnoi), Gita (wife of Shanker) and Shrawan Kumar (father-in-law), with this contention that informant Sunil Kumar was a resident of Mohalla Dubey, P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, and since last 15 years he was residing at Delhi and working as labourer, for maintaining his family, residing there at. His sister Savita was married to Anand Babu, resident of Mohalla Mishran Tola @ Joshi Tola, P.S. Jahanabad, District Pilibhit, about three months back at Delhi. This was second marriages of both Anand Babu and Savita. After some time of marriage Anand Babu (husband), Shrawan Kumar (father-in-law), Shakuntala (mother-in-law), Guddu and Vijay (brothers of Anand Babu), their brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Hari Shanker and their Sister Gita demanded Rs. One lac for doing business. They started demanding dowry from Savita and as a result cruelty was being committed with her. Informant, along with his father Ram Prakash, brother Sushil and nephew Akash went to Jahanabad for making persuasion to accused persons that he was not in a capacity to make payment of dowry of Rs. One lac. Please do bear. But it was of no avail and persistent demand of dowry with cruelty was there. On 27.6.2014 information about murder of Savita was received through telephone. Informant along with his family members rushed at spot and found dead body at mortuary. Savita, informant's sister, was murdered for dowry by her in-laws and an attempt to make it a case of accident was made. Whereas this was a dowry death. Hence this report.
4. Inquest report (Ext. Ka5) was got prepared by S.I. Phool Singh, upon information received through telephone from Circle Officer, Jahanabad, on 27.6.2014 at 10.00 A.M. regarding lying of a dead body of deceased lady at Platform no. 2 of Railway Station, who had met with some accident at railway track. Inquest proceeding started at 11.30 A.M. Death was
Satvir Singh and others vs. Sate of Punjab and another
Kaliyaperumal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Banshi Lal Vs. State of Haryana
Pathan Hussain Basha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Kashmir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab
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.