Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2401 (ALL)

Kripa Shanker v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2016-07-12

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. 1. List has been revised. Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. are present. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi -Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2007 (Kripa Shanker and others v. State of U.P. ), confirming the judgement and order dated 17.03.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi-Gyanpur in Case No.1143 of 2005 (State v. Jadawati Devi and others), under Sections 498-A, 326 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi. 3. The facts narrated in the F.I.R. in narrow compass are as follows:- "The informant-Jagnarayan Pathak presented a written application before the officer-in-charge, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi regarding the alive burning of the daughter for the sake of dowry. Marriage of Nagina Devi, d/o Jagnarayan Pathak, r/o village Saraiya, Police Station Cheelh, District Mirzapur was solemnized with Ravi Shankar s/o Kripa Shankar, r/o village Babhnauti, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar with Hindu Customs. Seven sets of jewellery along with Rs.15,000/- cash was given as a dowry. Soon after the marriage, his daughter Nagina Devi was being tortured for dowry. In the intervening night of 2/3.10.2001, mother-in-law Jarawati Devi, father-in-law Kripa Shankar, husband Ravi Shankar, brother-in-law Pradeep Kumar and Jeth Manoj Kumar after confining her in the room sprinkled kerosene upon Nagina Devi and set her ablaze. Nagina Devi raised alarm to save her life. Hearing that alarm, some anonymous person from the village informed Jagnarayan Pathak, informant/complainant father of Nagina Devi about the incident. In-laws ran away leaving Nagina Devi in a burnt condition. Informant Jagnarayan Pathak, his son Pappu and Subaas accompanied Nagina Devi to Government Hospital, Bhadohi. After primary treatment, she was referred to Kabir Chaura Hospital, Varanasi. Daughter of informant was still struggling with life and death." 4. On the above written information, case in crime no.224 of 2001, under Sections 498A, 326 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar. 5. After primary treatment, she was referred to Kabir Chaura Hospital, Varanasi. Daughter of informant was still struggling with life and death." 4. On the above written information, case in crime no.224 of 2001, under Sections 498A, 326 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar. 5. After the criminal law was set in motion, the Investigating Officer investigated and submitted a charge-sheet against accused persons namely Kripa Shankar, Manoj Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar alias Ravi Shankar, Jarawati and Pradeep Kumar under Sections 498A, 326 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. 6. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi (Court No.6) framed the charges against the above-named accused persons under Sections 498A, 326 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. At the trial, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge, examined P.W.-1 Jagnarayan Pathak, P.W.-2 Nagina Devi, P.W.-3 Lalti Devi, P.W.-4 Dr. Pravin Chandra Tiwari and P.W.-5 Constable Indrasan. Apart from adducing oral evidence, prosecution placed reliance upon a large number of documents. Accused persons chose not to adduce any evidence. 8. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi (Court No.6) found that the accused revisionists therein were guilty and imposed the sentence. 9. On appeal being preferred by the convicts, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur gave the stamp of approval to the conviction and the sentence. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that both the courts below have faulted in accepting the evidence cited by the prosecution. It is also urged that the appellate court has been swayed away by the emotion. The approach as requisite under the criminal law has been flawed and the result is unwarranted affirmation of conviction. 11. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, in oppugnation, has contended that the learned trial magistrate as well as learned appellate court have analysed the evidence in a microscopic manner and found that the accused revisionists are guilty of the offence. 12. The injury report of Nagina Devi reveals that she was examined on 03.10.2001 at Rajabalwant Singh Hospital, Bhadohi and following injury was found on her body:- "(i) Superficial to deep burn both lower limbs (front and back), whole of back and both fore arms and hand more than 60%." 13. Patient was in semi-conscious state. 12. The injury report of Nagina Devi reveals that she was examined on 03.10.2001 at Rajabalwant Singh Hospital, Bhadohi and following injury was found on her body:- "(i) Superficial to deep burn both lower limbs (front and back), whole of back and both fore arms and hand more than 60%." 13. Patient was in semi-conscious state. She was referred to Kabir Chaura Hospital, Varanasi. The cause of injury was burn severe in nature (more than 60%). 14. P.W.-4, Dr. Pravin Chandra Tiwari has deposed that this injury might be caused in the intervening night of 2/3.10.2001 by sprinkling kerosene and by thereafter burning. 15. P.W.-1, Jagnarayan Pathak has supported the prosecution version and deposed in cross-examination that when he reached at the in-laws place of her daughter everyone has fled-away when he entered the house, he saw that his daughter was in a precarious condition. 16. P.W.-3 Lalti Devi w/o Jagnarayan Pathak has proved the demand of dowry by the accused revisionists. 17. P.W.-2 victim Nagina Devi has also supported the prosecution version and deposed that her husband Ravi Shankar was not demanding dowry but deposed that accused revisionist Jarawati set her ablaze, accused revisionist Pradeep sprinkled kerosene and accused revisionists Manoj Kumar and Kripa Shankar directed to set the victim Nagina Devi ablaze. She was set ablaze inside her in-laws house. This factum remained unexplained by the defence side. 18. Thus, acceptation of the direct evidence on record on proper scrutiny and analysis of proof, the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the revision stands dismissed. 19. Dismissed. 20. Let the entire record of the lower court be sent to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) for compliance.