IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Sameer Jain, JJ.
Sunil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020
Decided On : 27-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 304-B, 498-A, 201 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161, 437-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3, 4 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Offence of murder - Dowry death - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - FIR of present case was lodged by (PW-1) as Case Crime at Police Station, District Etawah, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against appellant and five others - Held, In present case, no explanation has been given by informant (PW-1) that why he lodged FIR of present case with an inordinate delay of three weeks in spite of the fact that he arrived at place of incident i.e. Railway Track where dead body of the deceased was lying - This circumstance would suggest that informant had no suspicion with regard to any foul play on part of appellant or any member of his family in his daughter's death - Though, later, after three weeks he lodged FIR alleging that his daughter was murdered by the appellant and his family members due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry but, during trial, informant (PW-1) did not support version of FIR - This circumstance is also indicative of fact that deceased might have died due to train accident - Court are of considered view that prosecution failed to prove its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction, dated 17.12.2019, and order of sentence, dated 19.12.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2019 (State v. Sunil Kumar) whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- coupled with a default sentence of five months.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
2. The FIR of the present case was lodged by Chhottey Lal (PW-1) on 3.10.2018, at about 13.59 hours, as Case Crime No. 245 of 2018 at Police Station Sefai, District Etawah, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the appellant and five others.
3. The prosecution story in the FIR is as follows: the marriage of the appellant was performed with the daughter of informant on 17.4.2014. In the marriage, informant gave Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lacs) cash and a motorcycle to the appellant and his family members alongwith other items worth Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs) yet, appellant and his family members were not satisfied and they demanded a car as an additional dowry. When the informant disclosed his inability to give a car, appellant and other accused persons started harassing his daughter (deceased). Informant's daughter also gave information that if the demand is not fulfilled she will be murdered. Thereafter, on 12.9.2018, at about 10.00 a.m., the informant received an information that in the night of 11.9.2018 due to non-fulfilment of the demand of additional dowry, his daughter has been murdered and her dead body has been disposed off. On getting the information, when the informant arrived at the matrimonial home of his daughter, alongwith other persons, neither his daughter nor the accused persons including the appellant were found. When the informant and his family members inquired, they came to know that after committing the murder of his daughter, dead body was put on Railway Track and from there, it was recovered by the Police.
4. It be noted that much prior to the lodging of the above-mentioned FIR, on 12.9.2018, at about 9.42 hours, an information was given by one Pradeep Kumar (not examined), Porter Railway Section, Sarai Bhupat, Jaswant Nagar, Etawah to the Police that a dead body of an unknown lady is lying on Railway Track which appears to be a consequence of train accident. On this information, Police arrived at Railway Section Sarai Bhupat, Jaswant Nagar, Etawah and at 10.15 am, on 12.9.2018, the inquest team proceeded to the spot. Inquest was completed by 13.00 hrs on 12.9.2018. Inquest report (Ext.Ka-7) was prepared by SI Mahendra Kumar (PW-6), PS Jaswant Nagar, Etawah. Body was identified later.
5. After inquest proceedings, dead body was dispatched for autopsy. It be noted that though the inquest was conducted of an unknown body but autopsy was of the cadaver of Archana Yadav wife of Sunil Kumar which, as per autopsy report, was brought by CP-1026 Pankaj Kumar, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, Etawah.
6. The autopsy commenced at about 11.35 a.m. of 13.9.2018 and was completed by 12.05 p.m.. The autopsy surgeon (PW-3) noticed following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased :
(ii) Multiple contusion present at chest and abdomen with underlying multiple ribs are fractured (both side).
(iii) Multiple contusion present at both upper limb with multiple underlying bone fracture.
(iv) Lacerated wound in size 10.0 cm X 6.0 cm present at right thigh region ankle joint with underlying bone fracture.
(v) Lacerated wound in size 6.0 cm X 4.0 cm present right ankle joint with underlying bone fracture.
(vi) Multiple contusion present at left lower limb with underlying bone fracture.
(vii) Both buttocks lacerated.''
According to the Autopsy Surgeon, deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage caused by ante-mortem injur
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar
Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram
Anwar Ali and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Mukesh and another v. State (NCT of Delhi)
P Rajgopal and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Point of law : Fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must b....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in cases of dowry death, and circumstantial evidence must be conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act will apply to those cases where prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.(2) When a case is resting on circumstan....
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
(1) Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.(2) Burden of proof – Ordinary rule that applies to criminal trials that onus lies on prosecution to prove guilt of accu....
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fac....
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.