Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 74 (UTT)

BRIJ BHUSHAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-02-23

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This Court has heard the arguments in the instant appeal advanced by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned AGA. 2. The facts are that Smt. Anita, daughter of Sri Som Pal Singh, was espoused with Sri Brij Bhushan Singh almost half and a year ago from the date of lodging the First Information Report on 6.12.1986. Sri Brij Bhushan Singh was an Army personnel posted at some remote place in India. Smt. Anita committed suicide in the evening of 5.12.1986 and she was found dead in her matrimonial house. In the post mortem, no injury was noticed on her body, so her Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical examination. It was revealed that she consumed poison, which resulted in her mortal. The FIR was lodged next day at 9.10 p.m. by Sri Som Pal Singh (father of the deceased), who happened to be a Lekhpal in the nearby district Rampur within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Vilaspur. The Chick of the FIR is Exhibit Ka-8. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against Sri Brij Bhushan Singh (husband), Sri Brij Kumar Singh (brother-in-law) and Smt. Shakuntala Devi (mother-in-law). It is pertinent to mention that the father of Sri Brij Bhushan Singh, namely, Lakhpat Singh has already died. After the trial, the learned lower court found all the three accused persons guilty for the offences of Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Under Section 498A IPC, all the accused persons were directed to suffer one year’s rigorous imprisonment. In addition to that, Rs. 1,000/- fine was imposed and in default of fine, all were directed to undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. For the offence of Section 306 IPC, all the accused persons were directed to suffer four years’ rigorous imprisonment along with Rs. 2,000/- fine by each and in default of payment of fine, all were directed to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. 3. Feeling aggrieved, all the three convicts preferred this appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which was made over to this Court after carving out the new High Court/province. 4. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the appeal, the brother-in-law Sri Brij Kumar Singh and mother-in-law Smt. Shakuntala Devi (both convicts) have died. So, the appeal has already been abated against them. 4. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the appeal, the brother-in-law Sri Brij Kumar Singh and mother-in-law Smt. Shakuntala Devi (both convicts) have died. So, the appeal has already been abated against them. This Court has given a meticulous hearing to learned counsel on behalf of Sri Brij Bhushan Singh, who read the entire judgment and evidence before this Court. 5. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of PW2 (father of the deceased), who has deposed that the demand of motorcycle and television was raised only by mother-in-law Smt. Shakuntala Devi and brother-in-law Sri Brij Kumar Singh. Even the trial court has opined that at the time of marriage, no demand was made regarding dowry by the accused persons and this has been also accepted by PW1 (mother of the deceased) and PW2 (father of the deceased). 6. However, on scrupulous examination of entire evidence, which included the letters (Exhibits Ka-1, Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-4) written by husband Brij Bhushan Singh to his father-in-law makes it abundantly clear that he was irked/dissatisfied because the promise of offerings in the marriage was not fulfilled on the part of the father of the bridge. These letters manifest the simmering resentment against the father-in-law Sri Som Pal Singh along with other family members and cast a reflection of inherent demand of dowry after marriage. The evidence nowhere indicates that any instigation was caused on the part of husband Sri Brij Bhushan Singh so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. 7. Learned counsel has accepted that the language of the letters, written by Brij Bhushan Singh to his father in law, entails the demand of fulfillment of promise, which was made by Sri Som Pal Singh at the time of engagement. So at the most, the offence (if any) committed by Sri Brij Bhushan Singh may be of Section 498A IPC, but by no stretch of imagination, he can be held guilty for the offence of Section 306 IPC. 8. This Court do agree with the submissions acceptance of the learned counsel for the appellants and finds that the appellant Sri Brij Bhushan Singh should be exonerated from the offence of Section 306 IPC while in the helm of above evidence, he is found guilty of Section 498-A IPC. 9. 8. This Court do agree with the submissions acceptance of the learned counsel for the appellants and finds that the appellant Sri Brij Bhushan Singh should be exonerated from the offence of Section 306 IPC while in the helm of above evidence, he is found guilty of Section 498-A IPC. 9. Learned counsel has apprised this Court that after retirement from Army and losing his mother and brother, accused person Brij Bhushan Singh has become very infirm and weak, so he entreated for reduction of the quantum of sentence to that of already undergone by him. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer made by appellant Brij Bhushan Singh is accepted. The appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against Sri Brij Bhushan Singh for the offence of Section 306 IPC is set aside, while the conviction for the offence of Section 498A IPC is sustained and sentence for the offence of Section 498A IPC is reduced to that of already undergone by accused appellant Brij Bhushan Singh, which is almost one month and 15 days. However, the fine of Rs. 1,000/-, which has been imposed by the court below for the offence of Section 498A IPC is hereby enhanced to that of Rs. 5,000/-. If he does not deposit the same within a period of three months from today, then he will further go imprisonment for a period of three months. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above. 11. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. Let the lower court record be sent back.