Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 984 (ALL)

Pradeep Yadav v. State of U. P.

2018-04-20

RAJIV LOCHAN MEHROTRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : RAJIV LOCHAN MEHROTRA, J. 1. The Judgment and order dated 14.12.2016 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Allahabad in S.T. No. 521 of 2010 arising out of case crime No. 359 of 2009 convicting the appellant for ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B I.P.C., three years rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 498A I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 4 D.P. Act is under challenge in the instant criminal appeal. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 16.6.2009, complainant Sunil Kumar Yadav handed over a written report to the in-charge police station Anpara, district Sonbhadra with the averments therein that the marriage of his younger sister Nishi was performed with Pradeep Yadav on 17th February, 2009 as per Hindu customs. The in-laws of Nishi (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') were not satisfied with the dowry provided in the marriage. Her mother-in-law, Meenakshi, father-in-law Salikram, husband Pradeep Yadav, Jeth Deep Yadav and Jethani (wife of Deep) were pressurizing her and members of her natal family to provide them a car and Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry. They also threaten Nishi that in case, the said demand is not fulfilled, she would be done to death. On 14th June, 2009, the deceased was taken to Anpara on the pretext of pleasure trip whereat she was killed by husband Pradeep Yadav by administering her some poisonous substance. An information with regard to death of the deceased was communicated to her natal family members on 17.6.2009 upon which, the complainant and other members reached at Anpara. 3. On the basis of above said complaint, report was lodged against the appellant on 18.6.2009 at 3.30 PM. The formalities regarding the inquest memo were observed on 17.6.2009 while autopsy on her body was performed on 18.6.2009 at 12.00 noon. The doctor could not ascertain the cause of her death, therefore, her viscera was transmitted to the forensic lab for opinion wherein Aluminium Phosphide poison was found. Matter was investigated. Investigating Officer was provided an undated letter on 3.7.2009 addressed to the Station Officer, Police Station Allapur, Allahabad alleged to have been written by the deceased during the investigation from the side of the prosecution. Matter was investigated. Investigating Officer was provided an undated letter on 3.7.2009 addressed to the Station Officer, Police Station Allapur, Allahabad alleged to have been written by the deceased during the investigation from the side of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer after collecting all the evidence reached on the conclusion that the present matter falls under the category of dowry death and only husband can be held guilty for it, therefore, he submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant Pradeep Yadav. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. in alternative Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act which he denied and claimed trial. 4. In support of the charges prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-1 Sunil Kumar Yadav, PW-2 Anil Kumar Yadav, PW-3 Pappan, PW-4 Jagdish Yadav, PW-5 Dr. Sunita Govil, PW-6 Shakuntala Yadav, PW-7 S.B.S. Kushwaha, PW-8 Ramakant Dubey Nayab Tehsildar, PW- 9 Investigating Officer Sanjay Chawdhary, PW-10 Shankar Dutta Shukla Investigating Officer, PW-11 S.I. Ramesh Yadav, PW-12 S.I. Ashok Kumar Shukla, PW-13 S.I. Dayaram Gautam, PW-14 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Deputy Director Forensic Lab. Except PW-1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are witnesses of facts while rest are formal witnesses. 5. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded wherein he denied the allegation of any sort of demand of dowry and said that the deceased was admitted to hospital in an intoxicated position by him. He tried his level best to save her life. Deceased was highly disturbed as the natal family members were not returning back her jewellary which was entrusted to them. 6. From the side of the accused appellant DW-1 Neetu Yadav, DW-2 Mahendra Yadav and DW-3 Deepak Yadav were examined as defence witnesses. 7. Initially, the members of complainant family provided a letter alleged to have been written by the deceased on 3.7.2009 to the Investigating Officer. The said letter was sent to the forensic lab for its verification along with the admitted writing of the deceased. As the said letter was a scanned copy of the original letter, forensic lab expressed its inability to tally it with the admitted one. Nearly five years after the occurrence, the prosecution during the trial again submitted a letter alleged to have been written by the deceased on the pretext of getting it during the cleansing of the house. As the said letter was a scanned copy of the original letter, forensic lab expressed its inability to tally it with the admitted one. Nearly five years after the occurrence, the prosecution during the trial again submitted a letter alleged to have been written by the deceased on the pretext of getting it during the cleansing of the house. The letter was again sent to the forensic lab for tallying it with the admitted hand writing. The Assistant Scientist, who verified the genuineness of the said letter, opined that both the writings are similar. The forensic lab reached on this conclusion only on the basis of some selected signs and words but when cross examined PW4 Dr. Sudhir Kumar, Deputy Director Forensic Lab admitted that these two writings have many discrepancies also. Apart from it, the said letter was produced by the prosecution during the trial & that too after five years of the occurrence. Therefore, the recovery of the said letter also becomes doubtful. 8. It is admitted by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses of facts that no dowry was settled either before or during the marriage. Rs. 5100/- were provided to the appellant's family at the time of the betrothal ceremony (Sagai). As per the evidence available on record, the financial status of the complainant family is also not high. Some of the brothers of the deceased are serving in private shops while the elder brother is maintaining a tea stall. Another brother-in-law of the complainant is selling tea and snacks at the Allahabad court. It is undisputed that the deceased died within four months of her marriage and during this period she visited her natal house so many times. She also appeared in an examination conducted by Rajarshi Tandon University, Allahabad and that too with the consent of appellant. It is also undisputed that on the unfortunate date she was on a pleasure tour at Anpara, Sonbhadra. 9. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the jewellery of the deceased was with the members of the natal family and when she demanded it back, they refused to provide it. It is also argued that the natal family members have sold this jewellery also. 9. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the jewellery of the deceased was with the members of the natal family and when she demanded it back, they refused to provide it. It is also argued that the natal family members have sold this jewellery also. The deceased was highly annoyed of the said act and for this reason only she did not visit her natal family on 12.6.2009 rather she preferred to go to her Tau's residence. 10. In the FIR, a common allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against the father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jeth, Jethani and the appellant. No specific allegation was levelled against the appellant in the FIR except above said. Though it is alleged by the complainant and his mother i.e. of the deceased also that a demand of dowry was raised by the appellant but on the other hand PW-3 Pappan Yadav who is also real brother of the deceased in his examination in chief has clearly denied the factum of demand of dowry. It is specifically admitted by PW-3 Pappan Yadav that neither any demand was raised before the marriage nor at the time of the marriage. Even at the time of the last Vidai, which was held on 13th June, 2009 no demand of dowry was raised by the appellant. Recovery of any such letter kept in between her clothes, which was made basis of the judgment under challenge, was also denied. It is clearly admitted by this witness that the jewelry provided to the deceased in marriage was later on sold by her mother and one of the brother i.e. complainant. It is also admitted that the deceased was highly annoyed over this act. Prosecution did not dare to declare this witness hostile. Therefore, there appears no reason to disbelieve his evidence. 11. Apart from it, PW-4 Jagdish Yadav, who happens to be maternal uncle of the deceased also admitted that no demand of dowry was raised by the appellant and the deceased was never subjected to cruelty by him. This witness also admitted that there was a dispute in between the deceased and some of members of her natal family with regard to the possession of the jewelry provided to the deceased during her marriage. On the said issue, a heated argument also took place between the deceased and her natal family members. This witness also admitted that there was a dispute in between the deceased and some of members of her natal family with regard to the possession of the jewelry provided to the deceased during her marriage. On the said issue, a heated argument also took place between the deceased and her natal family members. It is also admitted by this witness that the deceased was an obstinate and short-tempered lady. On account of which, the appellant was requested to take her on a pleasure tour. 12. It is argued on behalf of the State and the complainant that PW-3 Pappan Yadav had already been debarred from the inheritance by his mother and a due publilcation has also been made in the newspaper prior to the said occurrence. It is further argued that Pappan Yadav is not residing with the family members therefore, no weight should be given to his evidence. The argument of the prosecution to this respect is not tenable on the ground that PW-3 Pappan Yadav has been produced by the prosecution itself. Moreover, Pappan Yadav has also admitted this fact that he is residing in a different portion of the ancestral house and it was he who after the death of the father performed the Kanyadan ceremony of the deceased. Defence has also examined the wife of PW-3 Pappan Yadav as DW-1. DW-1 Neetu Yadav also supported the version of her husband Pappan Yadav in her evidence. 13. It is also admitted to the prosecution witnesses that the deceased, before her death was admitted to the hospital by the appellant. The appellant remained present during the entire inquest proceeding. The financial condition of the complainant's family also does not support the prosecution version with regard to the demand of Car and Rs. 50,000/- cash. 14. For proving a charge under Section 304-B I.P.C., prosecution has to prove it beyond doubt that there was cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the dowry death. Therefore, on the basis of above said evidence, it shall not be proper to uphold the conviction of the appellant. 15. Learned trial court has committed manifest error in scrutinizing the evidence available on record. The finding of the trial court is therefore unwise, even if not perverse. Therefore, on the basis of above said evidence, it shall not be proper to uphold the conviction of the appellant. 15. Learned trial court has committed manifest error in scrutinizing the evidence available on record. The finding of the trial court is therefore unwise, even if not perverse. In the result, I find merit in the appeal. Appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2016 is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2016 passed against the accused/appellant is set aside and he stands acquitted. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 17. 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.