1.

Court No. - 76

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 511 of 2018

Appellant :- Anoop

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singh,Kunwar Ajay Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

This criminal appeal has been filed against a judgement

dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Xth Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 519 of 2012, arising out of Case

Crime no. 228 of 2012, under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 I.P.C.

and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Barra, district-Kanpur

Nagar, whereby learned Judge convicted and sentenced the

appellant to 12 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B

I.PC., two years imprisonment under Section 498A with fine of

Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine two months

additional simple imprisonment, two years imprisonment under

Section 201 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of

payment of fine one month simple imprisonment, two year

imprisonment under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act with fine of

Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine one month simple

imprisonment.

The prosecution story in brief is that Marriage between the

deceased and the appellant was solemnized six years ago.

General allegations have been made against the appellant and his

other family members that they were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/-

(Rs. One lac) as additional dowry from the deceased and her

father and due to non fulfillment of the aforesaid demand of

dowry, the deceased was being maltreated and tortured by them.

On 12.01.2012 the accused-appellant along with his other family

members assaulted the deceased and she sustained injuries on

2.

her head. On information, father of the deceased reached at her

house and after seeing her condition, he along with her daughter

reached at police station Barra. The the injured was taken to

hospital to get her medically examined on 13.1.2012 and

thereafter, this FIR was lodged. After lodging of the FIR the

matter was compromised and the daughter of the complainant

came back to her matrimonial home. On 24.2.2012, in the

evening, father of the deceased received information that her

daughter is missing. Upon which the father of the deceased

reached her house and inquired about her and started searching

her whereabouts but her whereabouts was not known. The

father of the deceased raised suspicion that due to non fulfillment

of the additional demand of dowry her husband and in-laws after

committing her murder had hidden her dead body somewhere.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant, on

instructions, stated that he does not propose to challenge the

impugned judgement and order on its merits. He, however,

prayed for modification of the order of the sentence for the

period already undergone by the appellant.

In furtherance to his submission, the learned counsel for the

accused-appellant submits that the accused appellant had been in

jail during trial and after conviction he is in jail. As such, the

accused has already served out more than eight and half years of

the sentence. Further submission is that it was the first offence of

the accused and after conviction the accused had not indulged in

any other criminal activity. He next submits that although the

trial court has convicted the present accused on the basis of mere

conjuncture while the appellant is absolutely innocent and has

been falsely implicated in this case with the ulterior intention of

harassing him. Further submission is that there is no bread

3.

earner in the family of the appellant. He also submits that on the

question of legality of sentence he is not pressing this appeal and

only pressing on the quantum of sentence and he has prayed for

taking lenient view considering the age

Click Here to Read the rest of this document