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

2020 Supreme(All) 52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Prem Sheela @ Guddi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 558 & 564 of 2019
Decided On : 03-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anjali Singh, NA

Headnote:

Dowry Prohibition Act – Sections 498-A, 304-B – Appeal, are that deceased married to PW-2 mass wedding ceremony. Appellant is brother-in-law of PW-2 appellant is his sister appellant is his niece and one Subhash is real brother of PW-2 PW-1, mother of deceased, lodged a written information aforesaid appellants and Subhash used to torture the deceased Pratiksha for want of dowry. appellants and Subhash poured kerosene oil on deceased Pratiksha and set her ablaze, whereby serious burn injuries were caused to deceased; information of the said incident was given to PW-1by Hari Kishan (PW-2), upon such information she (PW-1) rushed to place of occurrence and learnt that her daughter was in hospital. Thereafter, she rushed to the hospital and found that the deceased was struggling for her life in District Hospital, Jaunpur. information, given by PW-1 was entered by police in General Diary and on the basis whereof, Case Crime No. 371 of 2013 was registered by Const PW-8 against the appellants as well as against Subhash Investigation was entrusted to S.I. Mata Prasad who rushed to the place of occurrence and after its inspection, prepared site plan, seized kerosene oil with plastic jerrycan, match box and prepared seizure memo –Held, F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of 24 hours with due deliberation and consultation and no explanation has been offered by prosecution in this regard; evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and (PW-4 are contradictory and not reliable and dying declaration (Ex.ka 11) of deceased Pratiksha is also doubtful and tutored which cannot be treated as a ground to prove the prosecution case. Trial Court has not properly discussed the prosecution evidence. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants are entitled to be acquitted, unable to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is accordingly set aside, appellants are acquitted –Appeal is allowed. (Para’s 58, 59)

Facts of the case:

Appeal, are that deceased married to PW-2 mass wedding ceremony. Appellant is brother-in-law of PW-2 appellant is his sister appellant is his niece and one Subhash is real brother of PW-2 PW-1, mother of deceased, lodged a written information aforesaid appellants and Subhash used to torture the deceased Pratiksha for want of dowry appellants and Subhash poured kerosene oil on deceased Pratiksha and set her ablaze, whereby serious burn injuries were caused to deceased; information of the said incident was given to PW-1by Hari Kishan (PW-2), upon such information she (PW-1) rushed to place of occurrence and learnt that her daughter was in hospital. Thereafter, she rushed to the hospital and found that the deceased was struggling for her life in District Hospital, Jaunpur. information, given by PW-1 was entered by police in General Diary and on the basis whereof, Case Crime No. 371 of 2013 was registered by Const PW-8 against the appellants as well as against Subhash Investigation was entrusted to S.I. Mata Prasad who rushed to the place of occurrence and after its inspection, prepared site plan, seized kerosene oil with plastic jerrycan, match box and prepared seizure memo.

Findings of the court:

F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of 24 hours with due deliberation and consultation and no explanation has been offered by prosecution in this regard; evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and (PW-4 are contradictory and not reliable and dying declaration (Ex.ka 11) of deceased Pratiksha is also doubtful and tutored which cannot be treated as a ground to prove the prosecution case. Trial Court has not properly discussed the prosecution evidence. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants are entitled to be acquitted, unable to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is accordingly set aside, appellants are acquitted.

Result: Appeal is allowed

JUDGMENT :

1. Both criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2018, passed by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. (Offences against Women), Jaunpur, in S.T. No. 389 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Kusum Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 371 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'D.P. Act'), P.S. Chandvak, District Jaunpur whereby appellants, namely, Prem Sheela @ Guddi, Kusum Devi and Brijbhan Gaur have been convicted and sentenced for offence u/s 498-A IPC for 2 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, for offence u/s 304-B IPC for 7 years rigorous imprisonment and u/s 3/4 D.P. Act for one year imprisonment and with fine of Rs. 1000/-. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Since both the appeals have been filed against the same judgment, hence both are being heard and decided jointly by common judgment.

2. Brief facts, arising out of this appeal, are that deceased Pratiksha Gaur was married to Hari Kishan (PW-2), s/o Banarasi, R/o Village Kanaura, P.S. Chandvak, District Jaunpur, in December 2007 in mass wedding ceremony. Appellant Brijbhan Gaur is brother-in-law of Hari Kishan (PW-2), appellant Kusum Devi is his sister (wife of appellant Brijbhan), appellant Prem Sheela @ Guddi is his niece (daughter of Kusum Devi) and one Subhash (since acquitted) is real brother of Hari Kishan (PW-2). Asha Devi (PW-1), mother of deceased Pratiksha, lodged a written information (F.I.R.) (Ex.ka1) on 9.6.2013 at about 9:50 p.m. at P.S. Chandvak, District Jaunpur that aforesaid appellants and Subhash (since acquitted) used to torture the deceased Pratiksha for want of dowry. On 8.6.2013 at about 7:30 p.m., appellants and Subhash (since acquitted) poured kerosene oil on deceased Pratiksha and set her ablaze, whereby serious burn injuries were caused to deceased; information of the said incident was given to Asha Devi (PW-1) by Hari Kishan (PW-2), upon such information she (PW-1) rushed to place of occurrence and learnt that her daughter was in hospital. Thereafter, she rushed to the hospital and found that the deceased was struggling for her life in District Hospital, Jaunpur. The information, given by Asha Devi (PW-1) was entered by police in General Diary (Ex.Ka 9) and on the basis whereof, Case Crime No. 371 of 2013 was registered by Const. Vinod Saroj (PW-8), under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, against the appellants as well as against Subhash (since acquitted). Investigation was entrusted to S.I. Mata Prasad (in short 'Ist I.O.') who rushed to the place of occurrence and after its inspection, prepared site plan (Ex.Ka 10), seized kerosene oil with plastic jerrycan, match box and prepared seizure memo (Ex.Ka 3).

3. Ram Kailash Saroj (PW-7), Naib Tehsildar (Local Executive Magistrate), upon oral direction of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Jaunpur, reached the District Hospital, Jaunpur where deceased was admitted and her treatment was going on. He recorded the statement (Ex.Ka 11) i.e. dying declaration of deceased on 9.6.2013 in the intervening night of 9.6.2013 at about 12:10 a.m. (night) which reads as under:

^^e`R;qdkfyd c;ku fnuakd 09-06-2013

Áekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS Árh{kk mez yxHkx 24 o"kZ iRuh gjhfd'ku xkSM+ dukSjk MksHkh c;ku nsus dh fLFkfr esa gS ,oa gks'kks gokl esa gSA

12%10 ,Œ,eŒ

gŒ viBuh;

¼MkŒ ÁHkkr½

vkdfLed fpfdRlkf/kdkjh

vŒ'kŒmŒ ukFk flag

ftyk fpfdRlky;

tkSuiqj

ÁkjEHk% 0%10 ,Œ,eŒ

eSa Árh{kk vk;q yxHkx 24 o"kZ iRuh gjhfd'ku xkSM+ fuoklh xzke dukSjk MksHkh Fkkuk pUnod bZ'oj dh 'kiFk ysrh gwa tks dgwaxh lp dgwaxhA lp ds flok; dqN u dgwaxhA

ÁŒ1 & vki dSls ty xbZ \

mŒ & esjh 'kknh lu~ 2007 esa 12 fnlEcj dks gjh fd'ku mQZ larks"k ds lkFk jkt dkyst esa vk;ksftr lkewfgd fookg lekjksg esa gqbZ FkhA eSa i<+uk pkgrh Fkh esjh uun Jherh dqlqe o uunksbZ c`tHkku tks esjs llqjky esa gh jgrs gS eq>s i<+us ugha nsus ds fy, rjg&rjg dh ckrs djds esjs ifjokj ls vyx djok fn;s rFkk eq>s esjh uun dqlqe o mldh csVh xqM~Mh us ,d o"kZ iwoZ ngst ds fy, dkQh

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