Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAI TYAGI, J.
Akhalesh Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1988 of 2019
Decided on : 01-10-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A, 304-B, 302 - Section ¾ - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 113-B - Cruelty demand of additional dowry - Presumption as to dowry death - Appeal against conviction - Complainant averments that his daughter(deceased) was married to appellant before 4 years. He had given dowry in the marriage, but his daughter’s husband (appellant), Father-in-law, Mother-in-law were not satisfied. They started demanding additional dowry and started torturing and beating her for non-fulfillment of above demand. In morning, complainant came to know that all above mentioned persons have killed his daughter for non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry.
Finding of the Court :
Trial court did not give any finding on the point of "soon before death" as discussed above. Not even a single word is found in evidence of PW1 and PW3 in this regard and not even a single word is written by the trial court on above point yet trial court reached to the conclusion that appellant has committed dowry-death. No reason is disclosed by trial court as to how it framed its opinion regarding dowry-death more especially when the factum of cruelty or harassment to the deceased soon before her death is not established at all and evidence in this regard is absolutely missing - Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, 1961, are proved - sentence passed by trial court under Section 4 of DP Act, 1961, needs no interference - Conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 304-B IPC is hereby set aside
Result: Appeal partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Akhalesh Pal against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Jhansi, dated 30.10.2018 in S.T. No. 65 of 2016 (State v. Akhilesh Pal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.272/2015 under Section 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'DP Act, 1961') Police Station-Garotha, District-Jhansi, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of DP Act, 1961, and sentenced only under Section 304-B IPC for 7 years and under Section 4 of DP Act, 1961, for 6 months along with fine of Rs.1,000/-
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Thakur Das Pal submitted a report in Kotwali Garotha on 11.12.2015 with the averments that his daughter-Kaushal was married to Akhilesh Pal S/o Kallu Pal R/o Village-Khadaura, PS-Garotha, before 4 years. He had given dowry worth Rs.2 lakhs in the marriage, but his daughter’s husband, namely, Akhilesh Pal (appellant), Father-in-law-Kallu Pal, Mother-in-law – Smt Valku and Nanad -Smt Urmila were not satisfied. They started demanding Rs.1,00,000/-as additional dowry and started torturing and beating her for non-fulfillment of above demand. In the morning of 11.12.2015, complainant came to know that all above mentioned persons have killed his daughter for non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry.
3. On this report the Case Crime No. 272 of 2015 was registered against the aforesaid persons and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Akhilesh Pal, Kallu and Smt. Balku under Section 498-A, 304-B and Section ¾ DP Act, 1961. After completion of trial, learned trial court acquitted Kallu and Smt. Balku of all charges levelled against them and convicted Akhilesh Pal and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this Appeal.
4. Heard Sri Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, submitted that prosecution could not prove when the marriage of deceased took place because no date of marriage is given in First Information Report and prosecution witnesses also did not tell the date of marriage. It is written in the FIR that marriage was solemnized before 4 years but no date is given. It is also submitted that no marriage invitation card is produced by complainant rather a 'letter of thanks' was submitted which is only a photostat copy and not the original. Hence, photostat copy is not permissible in evidence. It is next submitted by learned counsel that as per the FIR, one Pappu had informed the first informant regarding the death of his daughter-Kaushal. The complainant (PW1) has said that Pappu, resident of his village, told him that his daughter has been hanged. PW 3 is mother of the deceased. She has also stated in his statement that Pappu Mishra has informed them regarding the death of the deceased, but this Pappu is not at all produced by the prosecution in evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued emphatically that prosecution has not produced any evidence regarding the fact that 'soon before her death' she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. PW1 is the father of the deceased and PW3 is the mother of the deceased. Only these two witnesses of fact are produced, but none of them has uttered even a single word regarding the fact that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was a case of hanging. The deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. The reason behind the suicide was that deceased was having ailment regarding 'periods', and she was 'issue-less'. Appellant, the husband of the deceased, undertook the treatment of deceased. She was treated by Dr.Manju and Dr.Manju has been produced by defence as DW1. She has stated in her statement that deceased was issue-less and she had treated her. Dec
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
