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

2021 Supreme(All) 350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Subhash Chand, J.
Panna Lal And Another – Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7876 of 2017, 7877 of 2017
Decided On : 08-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : Arun Kumar Tripathi,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Atharva Dixit
For The Respondent: G.A.

Point of Law: Dowry death – Conviction confirmed - Prosecution has been successful to prove this fact that death of deceased took place in matrimonial house within 7 years of marriage was unnatural - Soon before death there was demand and for non-fulfillment of same deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 - Evidence Act - Section 113-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Presumption as to dowry death – Demand of Dowry – Appeal against conviction – Informant alleged that his daughter had been killed by hanging by her in-laws. He reached to village and saw his daughter hanged with Sari and her in-laws were absconding from house - His daughter was got married about 3 years back and endowment was made by him at time of marriage as per capacity; but father-in-law and mother-in-law being not satisfied, made additional demand of dowry - Informant was not capable to fulfill these demands, consequently his daughter was subjected to cruelty and due to this reason his daughter was killed and the body was hanged.

Finding of the Court: Re-appreciation of the evidence on record the judgment and order of conviction of the accused Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati for the offence under section 304-B,498-A and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act deserves to be set aside. Appellants hereby acquitted from the charges levelled against them under section 304-B,498-A and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in compliance of provisions of section 437-A of Cr.P.C, be furnished by them before the trial court - all the ingredients of section 304-B of I.P.C., are made out. From the evidence on record and legal presumption of law which is mandatory shall be taken against the accused persons in regard to committing dowry death - burden of proof shifts upon the accused persons to disprove that it was not a dowry death.

Result: Criminal Appeal No. 7876 of 2017 allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 7877 of 2017 dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal No. 7876 of 2017 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant Panna Lal and another and Criminal Appeal No. 7877 of 2017 has been preferred on behalf of Bhure Lal alias Shyam Manohar against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Mainpuri in Special Trial No. 136 of 2004 (State Vs. Pannal Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2001 P.S. Bhogaon, District-Mainpuri whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 304-B of I.P.C and were punished with imprisonment of 10 years each and for the offence under section 498-A were convicted and punished with imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of six months was awarded to be undergone. For the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act each of the accused was convicted and sentenced with imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine the additional imprisonment of one month was awarded to be undergone.

2. Both the aforesaid appeals are against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2017, therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by the common judgment.

3. The brief facts giving rise to both these appeals are that the informant Ram Singh, son of Munshi, resident of village Semalpur, P.S. Vishunpur, District Kannauj moved the written information with the police station concerned with the allegations that on 29th March 2001 at 5.00 O'clock he received the information in his village that his daughter Anita had been killed by hanging by her in-laws. He reached to village Shivai and saw his daughter hanged with Sari and her father-in-law, mother-in-law and his son-in-law were absconding from the house. His daughter was got married about 3 years back and endowment was made by him at the time of marriage as per capacity; but the father-in-law and mother-in-law being not satisfied, made additional demand of Gold Chain, T.V., and Almirah in dowry. The informant was not capable to fulfill these demands, consequently his daughter was subjected to cruelty and due to this reason his daughter was killed and the body was hanged. On this written information the case crime no. 106 of 2001 was registered under section 498-A, 304-B of IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act with the Police Station Bhogaon, District-Mainpuri.The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge sheet against all the accused persons under sections 498-A,304-B and ¾ D.P. Act on which the cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and after considering that the offence is triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed by the CJM concerned to the court of sessions for trial.

4. The trial court summoned all the accused persons and framed charges against all the accused persons under sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and ¾ D.P. Act and the alternate charge under section 302 IPC was also framed against all the accused persons. The charge was read over and explained to all the accused persons who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution to prove the charge against all the accused persons in documentary evidence adduced written information, Exb. Ka-1, Marriage card, Exb. Ka-2,Site plan of place of occurrence, Exb. Ka-3, Charge sheet against Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati, Exb. Ka-4, Charge sheet against Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar, Exb. Ka-5, Inquest report, Exb.Ka-6, letter to Chief Medical Officer, Exb. Ka-7, Specimen seal, Exb. Ka-8, letter to RI, Exb. Ka-9, Photo Nas, Exb. Ka-10, Post mortem report, Exb. Ka-11 and check FIR, Exb. Ka-11-A.

In ocular evidence examined PW-1, Ram Singh, PW-2, Ganesh, PW-3, Hukum Singh, PW-4 Lala Ram, PW-5, Om Prakash, Naib Tehsildar, PW-6 Retired Doctor S.K. Seth, PW7, Krishna Kumar Chaturvedi.

6. The statement of accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C was

      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