Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 508 (ALL)

HOTI LAL SHARMA v. STATE OF U P

2009-02-13

SHIV CHARAN SHARMA, VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
P. N. MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD , Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anup Trivedi Advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri Gaurav Kakkar learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State on the prayer of bail of the appellants Rajiv Kumar @ Bobby, Hoti Lal Sharma and Smt. Asharfi Devi @ Inderwati Sharma, who have been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Bulandshahr, in S. T No. 1163 of 2006 (State vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Bobby and others), under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 4 D. P. Act, P. S. Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Rajiv Kumar for the offence under section 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The rest of the appellants have been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 304-B IPC. All the appellants have been sentenced under section 498-A IPC and section 4 D. P. Act also for two years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively and with fine. We have perused the trial court record as well as other relevant documents including impugned judgment. ( 2 ) AT the outset, learned counsel for the appellants stated that the prayer of bail of the appellant Rajiv Kumar @ Bobby is not pressed at this stage. Hence on the basis of the statement of learned counsel for the appellants, the prayer for the bail of the appellant Rajiv Kumar @ Bobby is rejected as not pressed. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further argued that the remaining two appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also argued that considering the nature of the allegations made against the appellants, the Sessions Judge sentenced these appellants for seven years rigorous imprisonment only under section 304-B IPC, whereas the husband was sentenced to life imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that except the complainant and his son, other witnesses of the prosecution (except formal witnesses) were declared hostile in the trial court and there is no evidence worthy of reliance to substantiate the allegations of maltreatment of deceased for demand of dowry. Learned counsel also argued that some altercation between the husband and wife must have taken place. Further argued that the deceased and her husband were living separately since after the marriage. Learned counsel also argued that some altercation between the husband and wife must have taken place. Further argued that the deceased and her husband were living separately since after the marriage. ( 4 ) NEXT submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that certain injuries have been shown on the person of deceased according to the post-mortem report, but these injuries are simple and were not caused by these appellants, who had been living separately from the deceased and her husband and hence the learned sessions Judge was not justified in convicting these two appellants. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the complainant and AGA opposed the prayer of bail of the appellants and drawn our attention towards the defence evidence produced by the accused persons and tried to demonstrate that false evidence was produced in defence and it has not been established that the deceased was suffering from depression. It is further submitted that false theory of committing suicide by the deceased by taking some poisonous substance was set up by the accused persons and the learned sessions Judge has properly dealt with this fact in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel also argued that there was no consistency in the evidence produced on behalf of accused persons and the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in convicting all the appellants. It is also submitted that sisters-in-law of the deceased or other family members were not made accused by the complainant, which shows genuineness of the prosecution version, as false implication was not made. Certain portions of impugned judgemnt were also read over by the learned counsel of complainant to justify his submissions. ( 6 ) WE have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Without expressing any opinion on merit of the case at this stage, we are of the opinion that appellants Hoti Lal Sharma and Smt. Asharfi Devi @ Inderwati Sharma (father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased), deserve bail. Without expressing any opinion on merit of the case at this stage, we are of the opinion that appellants Hoti Lal Sharma and Smt. Asharfi Devi @ Inderwati Sharma (father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased), deserve bail. ( 7 ) LET the appellants Hoti Lal Sharma and Smt. Asharfi Devi @ Inderwati Sharma be released on bail in the above case during pendency of the appeal on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court concerned and subject to deposit of 50% of fine within one month from today, but prior to the release on bail. On depositing 50% fine, the realization of remaining 50% amount of fine shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, hearing of the appeal is expedited. Paper book is ready. Office is directed to list the appeal for final hearing in the month of July 2009. .