Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2174 (ALL)

Narain Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-06-09

RAMESH SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. – The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.5.1996 passed by Session Judge, Gonda in S.T. No. 315 of 1992, crime no. 165 of 1992 under sections 304-B, 302/34, 498-A I.P.C. And 4 D.P. Act, police station Colonelganj, District Gonda by which the appellant has been convicted under section 498-A I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment only and acquitted from the other charges. 2. An F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Shivpati alleging that her daughter Smt. Suneeta was married with appellant Sri Narain Singh three years prior to the incident. On account of poverty, she could not fulfil the demand of motorcycle made by accused-appellant on account of which her daughter was cruelly treated and harassed by the appellant and his family members. After two months of the marriage when appellant had gone to take back the daughter of the informant from her house then her daughter has refused to go with him as they were demanding the motorcycle from her but on the assurance given by the accused-appellant that no harassment would be caused to her daughter she after pacifying sent her with him. On 28.4.1992, she received an information from a person that her daughter has been burnt to death. On 29.4.1992, the informant reached at the place of occurrence and came to know about the fact that Venkat Raman Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Shanti Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, Sri Narain Singh, the husband of the deceased and Shesh Narain Singh, brother-in-law have actively participated in the crime and set ablaze her daughter. 3. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on 29.4.1992 at about 11 a.m. at police station Colonelganj, District Gonda as crime no. 165 of 1992 under sections 304-B, 302/34, 498-A I.P.C. And 4 D.P. Act. The said F.I.R. was lodged on the written information given by Smt. Shivpati, mother of the deceased which was marked as Ex. Ka.-1 and on the basis of the same a chik F.I.R. Ex. Ka. 9 was prepared. The information was entered in the G.D. at its serial No. 17 of the said date, copy of which is marked Ex. Ka.-11. Before furnishing the written information (Ex. Ka.-1 and on the basis of the same a chik F.I.R. Ex. Ka. 9 was prepared. The information was entered in the G.D. at its serial No. 17 of the said date, copy of which is marked Ex. Ka.-11. Before furnishing the written information (Ex. Ka.-1) an information was furnished by one Ram Ket Singh at the concerned police station on 27.4.1992 at about 1: 20 p.m. to the effect that Smt. Suneeta Singh had died of burn injuries on 27.4.1992 at about 10: 00 a.m. though Ram Ket Singh was not aware of the reason for death by burning. The information was entered in the G.D. at its serial No. 17 of the said date, copy of which is Ex. Ka.-11 on record. The inquest proceedings of the dead body had been conducted on 27.4.1992 at about 17-20 p.m. Vide Ex. Ka-2 and the dead body was thereafter along with the relevant papers, was sent for post mortem examination which was done at the mortuary, Gonda on 28.4.1992 at about 3-15 P.M. vide post mortem report (Ext. Ka.-8). The investigating officer prepared Naksha Nash Ex. Ka.-4, site plan of the spot Ex. Ka-14 and took into his possession the burnt clothes vide memo Ex. Ka. 12. One letter alleged to have been written by the deceased, was also collected from the informant and was sent for the report of the hand writing expert. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet Ex. Ka.-15 was submitted on 7.5.1992. 4. The trial court framed charge under section 304-B I.P.C., 302 read with section 34 I.P.C., 498-A I.P.C. And 4 D.P. Act against all the four accused persons, who pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Smt. Shiv Pati Devi, mother of the deceased and informant of the case, P.W.2 Triveni Prasad Singh cousin brother of the deceased and P.W. 6 Shobhnath Singh as witnesses of the fact while P.W.3 Constable Ugra Sen Yadav, P.W. 4 Surya Lal Singh, the then S.D.M. Balarampur, P.W. 5, Dr. G.P. Pandey, P.W. 7 H.C. Ramkant Tiwari and P.W. 8 S.N. Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police and Investigating Officer of the present case, were examined as formal witnesses. 6. The accused persons in their defence did not adduce any evidence. 7. G.P. Pandey, P.W. 7 H.C. Ramkant Tiwari and P.W. 8 S.N. Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police and Investigating Officer of the present case, were examined as formal witnesses. 6. The accused persons in their defence did not adduce any evidence. 7. P.W.1 Smt. Shivpati Devi reiterated the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. and submitted that the deceased was being harassed by the accused persons for demand of motorcycle which she could not fulfil on account of poverty. The marriage of the deceased was performed by her late husband, who died six months after the marriage of the deceased. She further deposed that the deceased, who came after marriage to her did not wish to go with her husband Sri Narain as she complained that she was being cruelly treated and harassed by the husband and other family members for a demand of motorcycle but on the assurance given by the accused appellant that she would not be harassed for demand of motorcycle, hence she sent her daughter along with accused appellant but on 27.4.1992 at 5 p.m. in the evening, who received an information that her daughter has been burnt to death by her husband and other family members on which she reached at the house of her daughter on 28.4.1992 and looking to the condition, the F.I.R. was lodged an F.I.R. against all the four accused persons. She handed over a letter alleged to have been written by the deceased, to the police regarding ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused persons. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of written information given by her. 8. P.W. 2, Tribeni Prasad Singh, who is the cousin brother of the deceased also deposed before the trial court regarding the harassment and cruel treatment given to the deceased by the accused persons. P.W.6 Shobh Nath Singh has deposed that father of Smt. Sunita was a teacher in Junior High School and died six months after marriage of his daughter Sunita with accused Sri Narain Singh and thereafter the accused persons began to pressurising the mother of the deceased that she should give motorcycle out of the funds left by her late husband. He came to know about the harassment and cruel treatment with the deceased by the appellant and his family member from P.W. 1. 9. He came to know about the harassment and cruel treatment with the deceased by the appellant and his family member from P.W. 1. 9. P.W. 3 Constable Ugrasen Yadav has deposed before the trial court that he was posted as constable at police station Colonelganj and had taken the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem. The dead body of the deceased was handed over to him by S.D.M. under sealed condition along with papers and he did not allow any person to temper with it. P.W. 4 Surya Lal Singh has deposed that he was posted as S.D.M. Colonelganj on 27.4.1992 on the information received he reached the place of occurrence and conducted the Panchayatnama in the presence of police personnel. P.W. 5 Dr. G.P. Pandey has deposed that he was posted at district Hospital Gonda on 28.4.1992 and had conducted the post mortem of the deceased which was brought by Constable Ugrasen-P.W.-3 along with constable Shiv Pooran. The post mortem examination report was proved at Ex. Ka-8 and as per the post mortem report, superficial to deep burns all over the body, except both soles and palms. Smell of kerosene oil not present in body. The cause of death is shock due to ante mortem burnt injuries. The doctor has stated that thee was less possibility of accidental burn. P.W. 7 H.C. Ramakant Tiwari has deposed that he was posted as Head Constable at police station Colonelganj and has stated that on 29.4.1992 at 11 a.m. P.W. 1 had given a written report on the basis of which he has registered an F.I.R. which was written in his hand writing and under his signature which was marked at Ex. Ka. 9 and further proved the chik F.I.R. and marked as Ex. Ka. 10. He further deposed that on 27.4.1992 Ram Ket Singh has given an information at about 10 a.m. that the wife of appellant, namely, Smt. Suneeta whose marriage was performed three years prior had died on account of burn injuries and the dead body is lying in the courtyard (Aagan). 10. P.W. 8 Dr. S.N. Singh has deposed that he was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police and had conducted the investigation of the present case which was entrusted to him on 29.4.1992. 10. P.W. 8 Dr. S.N. Singh has deposed that he was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police and had conducted the investigation of the present case which was entrusted to him on 29.4.1992. He recorded the statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., prepared the recovery memo and took the letter to by the informant alleged to have been written by the deceased and prepared the recovery memo for the same, made spot inspection and prepared the site plan. He also recovered the burnt clothes of the deceased and further arrested the accused Venkat Raman Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Shanti Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, and recorded their statements. 11. Heard Sri Ramendra Mishra holding brief of Sri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased committed suicide after bolting herself inside the room, the door of the same was got opened with the help of one Km. Suneeta daughter of Uma Raman Singh. He submits that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. He further argued that the allegation that the deceased has been done to death by the appellant and his family on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry is absolutely false. He submits that there is no documentary evidence to show that the deceased was being harassed for want of dowry and the letter which has been produced by the informant P.W. 1 and handed over the police alleged to have been written by the deceased, in the said letter also there is no mention about the demand of dowry. He submitted that the trial court has acquitted the appellant and his family members for the offence under sections 304-B/302/34 I.P.C. and 4 D.P. Act as it did not found the present case as a case of dowry death. He further submits that the conviction of the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased under section 498-A I.P.C. is against the evidence on record. He further submits that the conviction of the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased under section 498-A I.P.C. is against the evidence on record. He argued that the finding which has been recorded by the trial court that the appellant had caused harassment and torture of the deceased as the appellant used to make jokes with his sister-in-law, i.e., Sarveshwari Devi wife of Shesh Narain, elder brother of the appellant which was disliked by the deceased and provoke the deceased to commit suicide, also a false one. He lastly argued that the appellant has remarried after the death of his wife and is having a grown up daughter and to send him jail at this juncture of life, the same will ruin his family, hence the sentence awarded to him by the trial court be reduced to a fine. 13. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submitted that the deceased, who was the wife of the appellant was being harassed and tortured by the accused appellants, who appears to have some relationship with his sister-in-law as both of them had studied together and have fill up the form of high school but they could not succeeded. The said relationship of the appellant with his sister-in-law was disliked by the deceased. The said act appellant forced the deceased to commit suicide, hence the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 498-A I.P.C. sentencing him for three years R.I., therefore the appeal be dismissed. 14. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased was solemnized three years prior to the incident. As per the F.I.R. and the statement of the informant P.W. 1, who is the mother of the deceased that the deceased was being harassed and cruelly treated by the appellant and his family members on account of non fulfilment of demand of dowry. The deceased when came to her parents house after marriage did not wish to go along with her husband when he came to bring her to matrimonial home on account of harassment and ill-treatment given by the appellant and his family members on account of non-fulfilment of demand of motorcycle. There appears to be a letter of the deceased which was handed over by her mother to the police. There appears to be a letter of the deceased which was handed over by her mother to the police. No doubt there appears to be no mentioned of demand of motorcycle but from the said letter it appears that there has been harassment of the deceased and she was cruelly treated by her in-laws including her husband on account of which she appears to have committed suicide. The dead body of the deceased was found in a burnt condition in the house of the appellant which was taken out after opening the bolt from inside with the help of one Km. Suneeta daughter of Uma Raman Singh, who step down in the courtyard. The deceased died an unnatural death in her in-laws house within seven years of marriage, hence the acquittal of the appellant in other offences by the trial court though appears to be not justified as it has come into the evidence that the deceased was being harassed for demand of motorcycle. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the appellant and his family members for the offence under sections 304, 302/34 I.P.C. And 4 D.P. Act which has been conceded by the learned A.G.A.. as in the given facts and circumstances the State should have filed an appeal against their acquittal. At this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to give notice to the accused why he may not be convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-B I.P.C. and 4 D.P. Act though the impugned judgment and order acquitting the appellant is a questionable one but the finding which has been recorded by the trial court in convicting the appellant under section 498-A I.P.C. appears to be correct and does not call for any interference by this Court as the evidence which has come up for cruel treatment and harassment by appellant with his wife the deceased may be a reason that the appellant had developed some relationship with his sister-in-law and neglected his wife or for non-fulfilment of demand of motorcycle had prompted her to commit suicide. As per the post-mortem of the deceased, the cause of death is ante-mortem burn injury as has been opined by the doctor P.W. 5 and the conduct of the appellant in remarrying after death of his wife shows that he after being got ridden of the deceased, who committed suicide had not felt any guilt for his act. Thus the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. 16. However, taking into account the last submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has remarried having grown up daughter and he has to marry her and, if the appellant is send to jail her life would be spoiled, hence it is directed that rest of the sentence of the appellant reduced into fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- which shall be deposited by the appellant in the Court of C.J.M. Gonda within three months from today. Out of which, Rs. 1,90,000/- shall be given to the informant, Smt. Shivpati Devi-mother of the deceased, if alive, or her legal heirs, if any and Rs. 10,000/- shall go to the State. 17. In default of payment of fine, as directed above, the appellant shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence, as ordered by trial court. 18. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. 19. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to CJM, Gonda for its compliance. Appeal Partly Allowed.