Point of Law: In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and pendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2002 passed by IXth Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Crime No.225 of 1997, Sessions Trial No.586 of 1998, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow (State Vs. Ishwar Deen and others) convicting the each appellant to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498-A I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 304B I.P.C., ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Maneesh Kumar Singh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

3. In the instant Criminal Appeal against conviction, the brief story in the prosecution case is that Ram Dulari, mother of the deceased “Babita Yadav” lodged a first information report on 07.07.1997 in Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow that her daughter aforesaid Babita Yadav, who got married on 01.07.1994 with Ram Avadh Yadav, was subjected to cruelty, mental and physical torture in connection with demand of dowry since after the marriage. The aforesaid Ram Avadh Yadav, the son-in-law of the complainant with his father Ishwar Deen Yadav, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law forced her to bring Rs.40,000/-in cash. When the demand could not be fulfilled by the complainant, being a widow of insufficient means, they began to beat and torture her daughter. Severally they threaten in the course of beating the complainant’s daughter Babita Yadav that let her ablaze into fire or to push on the railway tracks so that she would die. She further complained that in April, 1966, Ram Avadh Yadav, the son-in-law assaulted the complainant’s daughter, inflicting a blow on her head from Banka. A report with regard to which was lodged in Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow, pursuant whereof, police recovered the complainant’s daughter from the house of appellants brought her into hospital for treatment. Subsequently the in-laws of complainant’s daughter, in mediation of some respectable people of the locality, asked pardon for their wrongs and requested to sent back the complainant’s daughter to her in-laws house with assurance not to do any such thing any future. However, on 02.07.1997, the complainant got an information received by her in house at Satna, Madhya Pradesh that dead body of her daughter was found at Gomti Nagar Railway crossing in suspicion state. She further informed in the written complaint that her daughter was subjected to cruelty by son-in-law, Ram Avadh Yadav, his father, mother, brother and sister to such an extreme extent that she compelled to commit suicide. The Police instituted Crime No.225 of 1997, under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C., Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow on 07.07.1997 whereupon after committal from the Magistrate Court, Session Trial No.586 of 1998 was instituted for trial by the Court of Sessions.

4. In the Course of trial, one of the accused, Ram Kali, mother-in-law of the deceased “Babita Yadav” died and therefore, the case was abated to her extent by the trial judge.

5. Firstly, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused, Ram Avadh Yadav and Ishwar Deen Yadav only, whereupon Sessions Trial No.586 of 1998 was instituted. Thereafter, rest of the accused persons, namely, Ram Kali, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased were arraigned in Sessions Trial No.18 of 1999, which was instituted thereupon. Both the sessions trial since pertaining to the same offence, therefore, the accused persons were trialed jointly for the purpose of consolidated hearing and judgment.

6. Firstly, the accused were charged under Section 306 and 498-A of I.P.C. but looking into the facts before the trial judge wi