The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions related to dowry death, burden of proof, circumstantial evidence, and sentencing principles in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the state.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 4.10.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2014 (State vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju) arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2014 convicting accused-appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.

3. The genesis of the case is that the deceased was married with the accused appellant Raj Kumar three years before the occurrence. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant/accused and his family members were demanding Rs. 2 lacs as additional dowry and when the deceased showed her inability to get the same from her parents, they harassed and subjected her to cruelty. On 20.04.2014, Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry were given to the accused persons but on 21.04.2014 the sad news of her death came. The FIR was lodged on the very same day by Satyaveer, the father of the deceased. The police moved to the scene of occurrence and prepared panchayatnama, autopsy of the dead body was performed and the post mortem revealed that the death was due to strangulation.

4. The police after recording the statements of several witnesses filed charge-sheet against the three accused persons. Being summoned the accused were committed to the court of Sessions as the offences for which the accused were charged were exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.

5. The charges were framed for commission of the offence under Section 304-B, 498 I.P.C. Read with Section 4 of D.P. Act and an alternative charge 302/34 I.P.C. was also framed against all the three accused persons, which was denied by them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The trial started and the prosecution examined a total of 10 witnesses, who are as follows:

7. In support of the oral evidence following documents were filed:

8. After the evidence was over, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the incriminating circumstances and the evidence against them were put to them. They have taken a defence of false implication and present accused/appellant Raj Kumar stated that the deceased committed suicide, at the time of occurrence he was not present at home and had gone for his job. When he got informed that the door has been closed by the deceased from inside, he came back, the door lock was broken by the neighbours and they saw the deceased hanging.

9. DW-1 Prem Singh has been produced for the defence side.

10. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the lear