Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3059 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. BAIJ NATH

2013-12-16

RAMESH SINHA

body2013
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the trial Court judgment and record. 2. This present Government appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 213.7.2004 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4,Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 70/2002 in Case Crime No.64 of 1999 by which the accused/opposite party has been acquitted for the offence under section 306 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 9.5.1999 at about 6.30 P.M, the informant Chandra Seth submitted an application at police station Hapur Budha, District Gorakhpur stating therein that his daughter Smt Sunita Devi was married to accused-apposite party No.1 Baijnath. On 8.5.1999 at about 6.00 P.M, father of the accused Baijnath came to his village and informed him that his daughter is seriously ill. After receiving the said information, the informant reached at the house of Lal Chand, opposite party No.4 where he was informed that his daughter committed suicide by hanging and was not allowed to see her. Thereafter he returned to his house and came back with 7 or 8 persons then he was allowed to see his daughter who was lying dead. On account of stormy night he could not give the information to the police station. The F.I.R of the incident was lodged under sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C and D.P. Act. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused- opposite parties under section 306 I.P.C. 4. The charges were framed against the accused- opposite parties under section 306 I.P.C by the trial court. The accused-opposite parties denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of the prosecution case, apart from the documentary evidence, the prosecution examined PW-1 Ram Milan, PW-2 Ram Roop, PW-3 Dilip Kumar, PW-4 Chand Seth, PW-5 Radha Mohan Singh, PW-6 Dr. O.N.Gupta, PW-7 Shyam Lal Chaudhary and P.W-8 Kalpnath Chaudhary. 6. The accused in their statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution case and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused-opposite parties in their defence examined DW-1 R.K. Jaiswal, hand writing expert. 7. Learned A.G.A submitted that the deceased Smt. Sunit Devi was married in the year 1994 and the 'Gauna' ceremony took place in the year 1997. The accused-opposite parties in their defence examined DW-1 R.K. Jaiswal, hand writing expert. 7. Learned A.G.A submitted that the deceased Smt. Sunit Devi was married in the year 1994 and the 'Gauna' ceremony took place in the year 1997. He submitted that when the deceased first time went to her father-in-law's place a demand of gold chain was continuously made by the accused-opposite parties and for that deceased was subjected to cruelty due to which she was done to death. He submitted that the marriage between the deceased and the opposite party No.1 Baijnath took place in the year 1994 and within seven years of marriage the deceased died an unnatural death in the house of her in-laws and the presumption is that the death is a dowry death and as such the learned trial court should have altered the charge under sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C and D.P. Act and should have proceeded accordingly. He submitted that the trial court has given undue weightage to the negligence of the Investigating Officer without considering this fact that the informant has categorically stated in his statement that the police was favouring the accused-opposite parties and his first information report was registered only when he made complaint to the S.S.P. He further pointed out that the trial court misread the evidence of trial court and has acquitted the opposite parties, hence the order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside. 8. From the perusal of the material on record, it transpires that the marriage between the accused-opposite party No.1 Baijnath and deceased was solemnized in the year 1994 and Gauna ceremony was performed in the year 1997 and the deceased was living with her husband and in-laws at their house. The accused-opposite parties in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C have categorically denied the allegation of demand of dowry and has submitted that the deceased had gone away from the house in the village without informing them and when she had returned, she was scolded by her husband and other family members and she become annoyed on account of which she also did not take her food and had committed suicide in the house of her in-laws. It was further transpires from the record that when the said incident was took place, the father-in-law of the deceased had gone to the parents of the deceased and informed him about the incident on which they came to the house of the accused-opposite parties. After the incident the Panchayatnama of the deceased was conducted and the P.W-3 Dilip Kumar and PW-4 Chand Seth, the brother and father of the deceased were witnesses of the Panchayatnama and thereafter the post mortem was conducted. It further transpires that during the investigation P.W-3 and P.W-4 there was allegation of demand of dowry which has been stated to have been made by the accused?opposite parties from the deceased and her parents for giving a golden chain which was found to be false during the investigation as the allegation of said demand was made for the first time in the trial court in the evidence of P.W-3 and PW-4. The learned trial court found that from the post mortem report of the deceased it was evident that the cause of death of the deceased was hanging and no other anti mortem injury found on the person of the deceased, hence it framed charge under section 306 I.P.C against the accused-opposite parties and tried them for the same. 9. The learned trial court further examined the evidence of the prosecution witness specially PW-3 and PW-4 who were the family members of the deceased and arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the evidence against the accused-opposite parties that they had treated the deceased with cruelty and was tortured for the demand of gold chain on account of which she committed suicide hence no presumption can be drawn that it was a dowry death. On the other hand the learned trial court found that the deceased had gone alone in the village without the consent of her in-laws and when she returned, she was scolded by her in-laws and she on account of the said fact got annoyed and committed suicide. 10. On the appraisal of evidence as discussed by the learned trial court I find that the judgment of acquittal was rightly passed. I find no merit in this appeal and as such while dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I refused to grant special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. 11. 10. On the appraisal of evidence as discussed by the learned trial court I find that the judgment of acquittal was rightly passed. I find no merit in this appeal and as such while dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I refused to grant special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. 11. This appeal is dismissed accordingly.