- (1.)Being aggrieved with the judgment and order dtd. 22/2/1984 in Sessions Trial No.487 of 1981, under sec. 302 read with sec. 34 I.P.C. arising out of case Crime No. 347 of 1981, P.S. Harbans Mohal, District Kanpur, appellants preferred instant appeal, whereby learned Sessions Judge (non metropolitan area), Kanpur hold guilty appellants Shri Mool Chand, Smt. Padmawati, Shri Ashok Kumar Jain and Shri Raj Kumar @ Rajju and punished all of them with imprisonment of life.
(2.)During the pendency of appeal appellant Mool Chand Jain died against whom appeal was abated as per order dtd. 8/7/2016.
(3.)The factual matrix of the case is that complainant Shri Vishwa Nath Agarwal had married his daughter Smt. Radha Devi with accused Shri Ashok Kumar Jain about seven years earlier from her death. Accused Mool Chand (father in law), Smt. Padmawati (mother in law), husband Ashok Kumar Jain and brother in law Raj Kumar @ Rajju were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of wedding and were asking more from deceased Smt. Radha Devi, complainant and his family members and were subjecting cruelty to her. On 31/8/1981 one Shri Brajesh Chandra Pandey PW5 had informed to complainant Shri Vishwa Nath Agarwal at about 7.00 P.M. that his daughter Smt. Radha Devi was badly beaten so many times in the day by the appellants and consequently she died. Upon receiving information from Shri Brajesh Chandra Pandey, PW5 complainant came at the house of appellants/accused and requested to open the door but appellants threatened to complainant, hurled abuses and said that run away immediately otherwise his fate will be same like his daughter. After the threat of appellants, complainant got scribed Exhibit Ka-1 from Shri Brajesh Chandra Pandey PW5, with allegations that he has been informed by Shri Brajesh Chandra Pandey that appellants murdered his daughter by beating which has been seen by Dr. Deshbandhu Bajpai, Shri Manoj Bajpai, Shri Anup Kumar Gupta and other persons of the Mohalla. Accused persons closed his house from inside and not opened the door and are intending to dispose of the dead body. The house of the appellants was being watched by several peoples of the locality, so that they could not dispose of the dead body.