Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 616 (ALL)

Pramod Yadav v. State of U. P.

2018-03-14

RAJIV LOCHAN MEHROTRA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra, J. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Barnwal, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The judgment and order dated 15.02.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 3, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 872 of 2009 convicting each of the appellant for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 498-A IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 201 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 4 of D.P. Act is under challenge in the instant criminal appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.08.2009, complainant Buddhu Yadav moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur with the averments therein that the marriage of his daughter Reeta Devi(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was performed with Prem Pal nearly two years ago. Sufficient dowry was provided in the marriage but the accused persons were insisting upon to provide a Hero Honda motorcycle also. A panchayat was also held in the matter and on initiation of panchayat, the accused persons became ready to forgive their demand of motorcycle. On 31.07.2009, the deceased was killed by the accused persons and thenafter without informing the members of her natal family, they performed the funeral proceedings. The mediator of the marriage Ram Daras informed the complainant about the death of Reeta and thenafter the complainant reached at the funeral place but the accused persons present there did not tell him the cause of death. Complainant approached the local police for lodging of the report of the said incident in time but his report was not lodged. Thereafter, an application to Superintendent of Police was also moved but no heed was paid by him also. Ultimately, the complainant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate with the aforesaid averments. 4. On the basis of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the above said application, the FIR in the matter was lodged on 20.10.2009 and thereafter and investigation came into motion. The Investigating Officer, after collecting the entire evidence, submitted a charge sheet against all the four accused persons. 5. 4. On the basis of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the above said application, the FIR in the matter was lodged on 20.10.2009 and thereafter and investigation came into motion. The Investigating Officer, after collecting the entire evidence, submitted a charge sheet against all the four accused persons. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section D.P. Act which they denied and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined PW-1, Buddhu Yadav(complainant), PW-2, Arti Devi(wife of complainant), PW-3, Vinod Kumar Yadav(nephew of complainant), PW-4, Prema Devi, PW-5, Ram Daras(cousin of complainant) as witnesses of facts. PW-6, Constable Uday Pratap lodged the report and made its entry into G.D. PW-7 while Satya Sen Yadav investigated the matter. 7. The appellants examined DW-1, Ram Raj Yadav, DW-2, Gangi Devi and DW-3, Sandeep Chaudhari as defence witnesses. 8. The appellant-Prem Yadav(husband of the deceased) was not granted bail throughout the trial. After preferring the appeal, he made a request to the appellate court to the effect that keeping in view his age, sentence awarded to him may be reduced as he does not want to contest on merit. Vide order of another bench of this Court, the sentence of appellant-Prem Yadav was reduced from ten years to seven years under Section 304-B IPC without a change of sentences in other sections. 9. As per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur dated 15.02.2018, appellant-Hari Nath Yadav expired on 28.05.2015. Hence, the appeal stands abated against Hari Nath Yadav on account of his death. Now there remains only two appellants namely Pramod Yadav and Rajeshwari Devi. Promod Yadav is dewar and Smt. Rajeshwari Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased. No documentary evidence has been adduced from the side of the complainant to prove this fact that he has moved certain applications before Police Officers prior to moving the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. Though, photostat copies of two applications dated 08.09.2009 and 15.11.2009 are available on record but these are nowhere connected with the alleged complaint on which the said case has been initiated. 10. Though, photostat copies of two applications dated 08.09.2009 and 15.11.2009 are available on record but these are nowhere connected with the alleged complaint on which the said case has been initiated. 10. Pw-1, Buddhu Yadav, father of the deceased, admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of vidayi, the deceased told him that the members of her nuptial family are demanding a golden chain and a motorcycle as additional dowry. A panchayat was organized with regard to such demand and it was resolved in the panchayat that Prem Pal(husband of the deceased) now has forgiven his demand of motorcycle and henceforth he will not press it. It is further admitted by this witness that again some tussle arose between the husband and wife(deceased) which was told by the deceased to this witness. It was again told by the deceased to this witness that her husband was demanding motorcycle and a golden chain. The death of the deceased was informed on the same day to this witness by the mediator of the marriage. This witness reached the nuptial house of the deceased on the same day and thenafter to the place of funeral where the appellant-Prem Yadav and Hari Nath were found present. It is specifically admitted by this witness that appellants Promod and Rajeshwari were not present there. A suggestion was given from the side of the defence to the effect that the deceased died on account of cholera but the said suggestion was denied by this witness. PW-2, Arti Devi, mother of the deceased also admitted that her husband-Buddhu Yadav attended the funeral proceedings but he could not know the cause of death of the deceased. It is specifically admitted by this witness that a demand of motorcycle and a golden chain was raised by the appellants but the deceased was not assaulted by the appellants for it. This witness did not attend the funeral proceedings. PW-3, Vinod Kumar Yadav also admitted this fact that the complainant attended the funeral proceedings and the matter with regard to the demand of motorcycle and a golden chain had already been settled between the complainant and appellant-Prem Yadav. It was also settled that the appellants would not raise this demand in future. PW-3, Vinod Kumar Yadav also admitted this fact that the complainant attended the funeral proceedings and the matter with regard to the demand of motorcycle and a golden chain had already been settled between the complainant and appellant-Prem Yadav. It was also settled that the appellants would not raise this demand in future. It is further admitted by this witness that when he along with the complainant reached at the nuptial house of the deceased, the persons assembled there, did not narrate the cause of death. 11. Pw-5, Ram Daras is the mediator in the marriage from the side of the complainant. This witness also admitted this fact that appellant-Hari Nath told the complainant and his family members at the time of aforesaid settlement that now his son has forgiven the demand of motorcycle and henceforth he will not insist upon it. This witness also reached at the nuptial house of the deceased and as per his knowledge complainant has also visited the said house. 12. Dw-1, Ram Raj Yadav claimed himself to be a mediator in the said marriage from the side of the appellants. DW-2, Gangi Devi is the neighbour of the deceased. Both these witnesses have deposed that the deceased died on account of cholera and the complainant attended the entire funeral proceedings. DW-3, Sanjay Chaudhari, is a Dome. As per this witness, the body of the deceased was brought at the funeral place on 31.07.2009 at about 12:30 pm and entry to this effect was made in the register also. He further deposed that nearly 50 people were present on the spot including the natal family members of the deceased. 13. The death of the deceased as suggested by the defence is a result of cholera. Moreover, as per the evidence available on record, it was only the husband-Prem Yadav who was insisting upon the demand of motorcycle and golden chain. It is specifically admitted by the complainant that on account of this demand, the relations between the husband and wife(deceased) remained tense for nearly a month. It is also admitted that the appellants Pramod and Rajeshwari Devi were not present at the place of funeral. As per evidence of DW-3, Sanjay Chaudhari, the relevant entry of the funeral was made in the register and the funeral proceedings were attended by nearly 50 persons of both the sides. It is also admitted that the appellants Pramod and Rajeshwari Devi were not present at the place of funeral. As per evidence of DW-3, Sanjay Chaudhari, the relevant entry of the funeral was made in the register and the funeral proceedings were attended by nearly 50 persons of both the sides. No specific allegations are levelled against the appellant-Pramod(devar) and Rajeshwari Devi(mother-in-law). The entire allegations levelled by the complainant is against Prem Yadav(husband of the deceased) only who has already been convicted and sentenced in the separate appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 2827 of 2013. Appellant-Hari Nath has expired. As no specific allegation has been made against Pramod Yadav and Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against both these appellants. As the complainant himself attended the funeral proceedings, therefore, no charge of Section 201 IPC is also made out. 14. Therefore, to connect both the appellants i.e. Pramod and Rajeshwari with the dowry death of the deceased shall not be proper hence, the conviction and sentence dated 15.02.2011 passed in this respect in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2010 against these appellants is liable to be set-aside. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 15.02.2011 passed against both these appellants is set aside and they stand acquitted. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. In case, the fine is deposited by the aforesaid two appellants, they shall be entitled to get it back after the prescribed period of appeal. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the case be sent to the court below for needful action and necessary entries in the relevant registers.