SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1453

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, JJ.
Upendra @ Balveer - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2011
Decided On : 25-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ajay Sengar, S.P. Lal.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any alteration of charges must not prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 316, 498-A, 304-B, and 3/4 of D.P. Act - Conviction for murder and causing death of unborn child - The trial court convicted the appellant for life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment, respectively, under sections 302 and 316 IPC, but the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of dowry death and related offences. The trial court's reliance on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was misapplied as the prosecution did not establish the appellant's presence during the incident. The alteration of charges at the end of the trial prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial. (Paras 20, 21, 24, 30, 44)

Facts of the case:

The appellant was accused of murdering his wife, Deepika, who died under suspicious circumstances shortly after marriage, with allegations of dowry demands. The trial court acquitted the in-laws but convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence.

Findings of Court:

The High Court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to support the conviction under the altered charge of murder.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the altered charge and the adequacy of evidence to support the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, and the alteration of charges without proper notice to the accused violated the principles of fair trial.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's judgment was set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Siddharth, J.

1. Heard Shri Amar Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd, Jalaun, at Orai, in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2009, State of U.P. Vs. Upendra @ Balveer and Others. By the said judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under section 316 IPC for the period of five years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant has been further convicted under section 302 IPC for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default the payment of such fine, for an additional imprisonment of two months.

3. The prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that two years ago, deceased, Deepika, was married to appellant, Balveer, as per Hindu marriage rites. Dowry was given in marriage by the informant as per his capacity, but the husband of deceased, appellant, Balveer, his father, Raj Bahadur and Mother, Smt. Ramkali, were not satisfied with the dowry received in marriage. After marriage, they were demanding one motorcycle, a gold chain and Rs. 1 lakh and send the deceased back to her parental home. After the deceased informed the informant about the conduct of the aforesaid persons, he went to their house and stated that he lacks money to fulfil their demand and after leaving his daughter with them, he came back. They made many phone calls demanding dowry and on 20.05.2009, the aforesaid persons killed his daughter, information whereof was received by the informant on 20.05.2009 at 07:30 p.m. He reached there and lodged the F.I.R. against the accused persons on 21.05.2009 on the basis of written application at 01:00 p.m.

4. Charges were framed against accused under section 498-A, 304-B, 516 of IPC and ¾ of D.P. Act. They pleaded not guilty and sought trial.

5. The prosecution produced the following witnesses to prove the prosecution case:-

(A). P.W.-1, Pooran Singh, informant and father of the deceased; P.W.-2, Smt. Guddi, mother of the deceased; P.W.-3, Kumari Priti, sister of the deceased; P.W.-4, Anup, uncle of the deceased; P.W.-5, Dr. A.V. Singh, who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of deceased; P.W.-6, Mahesh Chandra Pathak, Naib Tehsildar, who prepared the inquest report of the deceased; P.W.-7, Amar Singh, witness of inquest; P.W.-8, Arun Kumar Sirohi, Investigating Officer of the case; P.W.-9, Ram Kumar Singh, witness of inquest report; P.W.-10, another witness of inquest report; P.W.-11, Raju, another witness of inquest; P.W.-12, Ranveer, also inquest witness; P.W.13, Constable, Ram Bahadur, who registered the F.I.R. before the police station at Madhavgarh, District- Jalaun, and P.W.14-, Yashvant Singh, who noted the information given by Karan Singh, Chowkidar, of the village that Smt. Deepika, resident of Village-Malheta, had died on account of burning on 20.05.2009 and information in this regard was registered in G.D. No. 20 at 04:35 p.m.

6. Thereafter, statements of accused persons were recorded under sections 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations made against them.

7. P.W.-1, Pooran Singh, repeated the contents of the F.I.R. before the court in his examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, he stated that after marriage his daughter had separated from her father-in-law, mother-in-law and was residing with her husband, Upendra @ Balveer, the appellant. He further stated that his daughter never informed him about the demand of motorcycle, a gold chain and Rs. 1 lakh. His daughter came to his house 15 days after her marriage and went back to her matrimonial home after 2-4 days. Thereafter, he never went to meet her and only when her death took place, he got information. The matrimonial home of his daughter was a small and kaccha house. His daughter was suffering from the disease of hysteria and while cooking food she accidentally got burned and died.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top