Iliyas vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 625

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, JJ.
Iliyas - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2942 of 2012 with Criminal Appeal No. 7154 of 2011
Decided On : 16-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ravindra Prakash Srivasta, Gaurav Kumar Shukla, Shesh Narain Mishra, Surendra Kumar Tiwari.

Headnote:
D.P. Act - Section ¾ - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 498A and 304B - Homicidal death not suicide - Summoned - Tortured and harassed - Commission of offence - Whether death was homicidal death - Held, Accused Illiyas has been incarcerated for years of incarceration is enough punishment for a young person who was serving in parents were living separately from children - Overt act has been proved by leading evidence and therefore also this Court concurs with Judge – Court will go by theories of punishment - Court are convinced that death occurred within meaning of Section 304B of I.P.C - This takes us to sentencing theories prevailing in India - Husband has been incarcerated for years that period would be enough punishment looking to age of and other accused would now be of years and respectively looking to their advanced age period would be sufficient for them as punishment - Appeals Allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2942 of 2012 and Sri Surendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 7154 of 2011 and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present criminal appeals challenges judgment and order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2010 (State vs. Akram Ali and another) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants for commission of offence under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. For commission of offence under Section 498A I.P.C they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years six months with fine of Rs. 5000/-each and in case of default in payment of fine further to undergo nine months additional imprisonment. For commission of offence under Section ¾ D.P. Act the court has sentenced accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months each with fine of Rs.1000/-each and in case of default in payment of fine, further to undergo six months' additional imprisonment.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the accused-appellant Iliyas was married to the deceased two years prior to the incident, deceased was tortured and harassed by the in-laws for non fulfillment of demand of dowry one splendor motorcycle or Rs. 50,000/-cash. On 28.02.2009 at about 1:00 p.m father of deceased got information that accused-appellants Illiyas-husband of the deceased, Akram Ali-father-in-law of the deceased, mother-in-law of the deceased, Jabbar Ali, Mohd. Tayyab had done to death his daughter and set her ablaze.

4. On the basis of F.I.R., the investigation started and charge-sheet was laid. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused-appellants and committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offences alleged to have been committed were triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges alternate under Section 302 of I.P.C.

5. On being summoned, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

6. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 12 witnesses who are as follows:

1	Deposition of Sayee Mohd.	PW1
2	” ” Habibur-Rahman	PW2
3	” ” Sahira Khatoon	PW3
4	” ” Saiyed Ali	PW4
5	” ” Mustaq Ali	PW5
6	” ” Tahira Khatoon	PW6
7	” ” Dr. Dileep Kumar Gupta	PW7
8	” ” Dr. Ram Kewal	PW8
9	” ” Hauman Singh	PW9
10	” ” Naresh Chandra	PW10
11	” ” Hawaldar Yadav	PW11
12	” ” Nutan Kumar Bharti	PW12

7. In support of ocular version following documents were filed and proved:

1	Deposition of Sayee Mohd.	PW1
2	” ” Habibur-Rahman	PW2
3	” ” Sahira Khatoon	PW3
4	” ” Saiyed Ali	PW4
5	” ” Mustaq Ali	PW5
6	” ” Tahira Khatoon	PW6
7	” ” Dr. Dileep Kumar Gupta	PW7
8	” ” Dr. Ram Kewal	PW8
9	” ” Hauman Singh	PW9
10	” ” Naresh Chandra	PW10
11	” ” Hawaldar Yadav	PW11
12	” ” Nutan Kumar Bharti	PW12

8. At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused-appellants under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants as mentioned above.

9. It is submitted by Sri. S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant that the accused have not been proved to have demanded any dowry and death was not due to demand of dowry but as the deceased herself was not happy with the life in the village and wanted to stay with her husband in Bombay, she set herself ablaze. It is further submitted that father-in-law and mother-in-law were staying separately from the husband an