Point of Law: Dowry Death - Conviction upheld - Criminal jurisprudence in our country which is reformative and corrective and not retributive, this Court considers that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in social stream.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 304B - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4 - Cruelty - Demand of additional dowry - Appeal against conviction - Complainant (father of deceased) stating that marriage of his daughter (deceased) with appellant was solemnized he gave dowry in marriage as decided, but appellant and his family members were not satisfied with dowry so they started torturing his daughter and demanded four-wheeler and Rs.one lakh as additional dowry for which they used to give mental and physical torture to his daughter. They also stopped her daughter to contact with her father and mother. Appellant, her sister and her husband used to beat her. Deceased gave birth to a daughter and after that cruelty increased. Before 10 days of the occurrence, deceased maternal uncle and complainant's sons went to the house of deceased and requested her husband (appellant) and his family members not to torture deceased, but they abused and beaten deceased before them also. Somebody informed on telephone that his daughter had died. Her daughter has been killed by her-in-laws
Finding of the Court :
Quantum of sentence is concerned, in this case, accused-appellant was awarded two years R.I. under Section 498A IPC with fine and imprisonment in default, six months R.I. under Section 4 D.P. Act, 1961 with fine and imprisonment in default and ten years R.I. under Section 304 B IPC. It was also directed by learned trial court that all the sentences will run concurrently. Hence, in this case, maximum awarded sentence to the appellant is ten years. He is in jail since 13.3.2013. Hence, he has already undergone eight years and five months of the awarded sentence. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence already undergone by accused-appellant is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In regard to the fine imposed upon the appellant by learned trial court, this Court finds that the same is adequate and it is not required to be disturbed and the appellant is directed to deposit the same.
Result: Appeal is partly allowed

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Kanpur Nagar, in S.T. No.722 of 2013 (State of UP vs. Upendra Kumar Tripathi) arose out of Case Crime No.102 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Panki, District-Kanpur Nagar.

2. The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that complainant-Santosh Kumar Dixit (father of the deceased) lodged FIR at Police Station-Panki, Kanpur Nagar, stating that the marriage of his daughter Ruchi @ Aradhna (deceased) with Upendra Kumar @ Neeraj (appellant) s/o late Rampal Tripathi was solemnized on 24.2.2012. He gave dowry in the marriage as decided, but Neeraj and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry so they started torturing his daughter and demanded four-wheeler and Rs.one lakh as additional dowry for which they used to give mental and physical torture to his daughter. They also stopped her daughter to contact with her father and mother. Upendra, her sister Poonam and Poonam's husband used to beat her. In December, 2012, Ruchi gave birth to a daughter and after that cruelty increased. Before 10 days of the occurrence, Ruchi's maternal uncle and complainant's sons went to the house of Ruchi at Panki, Kanpur Nagar and requested her husband (appellant) and his family members not to torture Ruchi, but they abused and beaten Ruchi before them also. On 8.3.2013 at about 9:00 a.m., somebody informed on telephone that his daughter Ruchi had died. Her daughter has been killed by her-in-laws, therefore, strict legal proceedings be initiated against them.

3. Heard Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for appellant argued that in this case after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant, while the complainant tried to implicate other family members of appellant also. Named Poonam and her husband were not charge-sheeted by Investigating Officer. On this score alone, the prosecution story seems to be false; it was a suicidal case; the death of the deceased is by hanging herself. Prosecution produced four witnesses of facts. PW1 is informant, PW2-Vineet Kumar is brother of the deceased, PW3-Durgesh Tiwari is cousin of the deceased and PW7-Shakti Saran is maternal uncle of the deceased. Their statements are contradictory to each other. As per prosecution evidence, there is no abatement on the part of the accused-appellant for commitment of suicide by the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that accused is in jail since 13.3.2013. He has been awarded maximum sentence of ten years under Section 304B IPC while he has already served more than eight years and four months of sentence. It is established by prosecution evidence itself that it is a case of suicide. He also submitted that prosecution brought forward a suicide note after 15 days of the occurrence and it is said that the suicide note was found in her maternal uncle's (mausa) house at the time of cleaning the house. Appellant got the hand-writing of the suicide note compared with the hand-writing of the deceased and the hand-writing expert gave the conclusion that both the hand-writings are not of the same person. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the suicide note and it is clear that it was written by somebody else to falsely implicate the appellant.

6. He submits that since appellant has already served near about eight and a half years of sentence out of ten years awarded to him, he should be freed now with undergone imprisonment as the appellant has one daughter aged about nine years only and earlier his daughter was residing with her grand-mother and now her grand-mother has died. Therefore, the daughter is residing now with her aunt (bua). It is obvious that a female-child of nine years needs parental care and she needs the support o