The judgment establishes the application of statutory provisions related to dowry death, matrimonial cruelty, and burden of proof under the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2005 passed by Additional Session Judge Court, No.2, Banda in Session Trial No.280 of 2002, under Sections 498A and 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of Case Crime No.29 of 2001, Police Station Kalinjar, District Banda, whereby the appellant Raj Kumar and co-accused Ram Asarey were convicted under Section 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-for charge under Section 304B of I.P.C.; 2 years imprisonment for charge under Section 498A of I.P.C. and 6 months imprisonment for charge under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act with default stipulation. The co-accused Smt. Sudama was acquitted from all charges in the impugned judgment.

2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant and Sri Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the records.

3. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that informant Nathoo son of Vishal, resident of village Jamu, Police Station Kamasin, District Banda lodged a First Information Report dated 14.06.2001 at Police Station Kalinjar, District Banda, on 04.07.2001 at about 08:15 hours wherein he has stated that he had married his daughter Kusuma on 29.04.1999 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals with Raj Kumar son of Ram Asarey and he gave Rs.20,000/-cash, valuable worth Rs.10,000/-as dowry to groom’s side, his daughter was send off after marriage. The father-in-law of his daughter stated that at the time of Vidai of his daughter, although marriage has been solemnized, he yet got nothing in the dowry; whereupon the informant expressed its inability to pay any more pleading his poverty. After one month of Vidai of his daughter his son Rajesh came to the place of accused person taking back his sister at the place of informant, where father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law of his daughter demanded Rs.10,000/-in cash, one motorcycle and one radio as additional dowry. His son Rajesh came back to his place alongwith his sister; the daughter of informant stated the informant and other family members that her husband and in-laws were demanding dowry from day month of his arrival at matrimonial place and husband used to abuse her citing ground of receipt of less dowry. The accused persons were coercing and harassing her due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. The daughter of the informant was again sent to her matrimonial home after some time, but demand of dowry persisted there. She was subjected to physical and mental cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, his daughter stated that if the demand of dowry made by husband and inlaws is not conceded, they would kill her.

4. Counsel for the appellant further submitted on 05.06.2021 when informant Nathoo came to the place of accused persons to take back his daughter, he came to know that his daughter Kusuma was done away by giving beating to her by clubs and sticks by her husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law (Devar). He visited the police station to lodge an FIR, but his report was not recorded. He also met Circle Officer who got inquest and postmortem on the body of the deceased, but his FIR was not recorded, then he approached the Superintendent of Police and on his direction his FIR was lodged. The Circle Officer Amrita Mishra investigated the case recorded the statements of witnesses, collected invitation card of marriage, inquest and postmortem report as well as documents forwarded with postmortem report and records relating to marriage of deceased with accused Raj Kumar. After collecting evidence the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against Raj Kumar, husband of the deceased, Ram Asarey, father-in-law and Smt. Sudama, mother-in-law of the deceased with prayer to prosecute the accused for charge under Sections 498A and 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D