SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(SC)-2020-12-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 02,2020

Sandeep Kumar and others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUBRAMANIAN VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [REFERRED TO]
ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JAIPAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
GHUREY LAL VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTAN SAO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.M.JOSEPH, J. - (1.)The appellants, who were charged with the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") stood acquitted of the said charge by learned sessions judge, Haridwar. However, in appeal carried by the complainant/respondent No. 2 herein, the verdict of acquittal was set aside and the appellants after conviction under section 304-B of IPC stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.)We heard Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellants. Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel for the first respondent-state and Shri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the second respondent.
(3.)On the basis of the complaint, by second respondent dated 23.01.2011 at 5.00 pm, an FIR was lodged. This led to the appellants finally being charge sheeted for having committed the offence under Section 304B of the IPC. Th e facts stated in the FIR read inter alia as follows: The daughter of the second respondent was married to the first appellant on 10.12.2009. After few days of the marriage the appellants who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of his deceased daughter started harassing her for dowry. About one month ago, his daughter and son -in-law came to his house and remained there for two days. On both these days his son-in-law, namely, the first appellant demanded from him, his sons and sons' wives a sum of Rupees ten lakhs within 10 to 15 days for the construction of the house. The second respondent expressed his inability. Thereafter, seeing tears of his daughter who said that her parents must pay the amount otherwise they will kill her, she was sent away after being consoled. Thereafter, his daughter is alleged to have phoned him, his family and his relatives thereby informing them that her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law were torturing her for money and they are provoking her to commit suicide. On 23.01.2011 at about 9.30 am, he received phone call from his deceased daughter to come at Haridwar otherwise they will kill her on that day. So, they went there. The dead body of the daughter was found in the car given by them in marriage. The death of the daughter was caused by poison and the appellants were responsible.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.