SANDEEP @ SONU Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-57
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 14,2013

Sandeep @ Sonu Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) ACCUSED appellant, by way of present appeal, is assailing the judgment and order dated 12.06.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2006 thereby convicting the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ - failing which to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of six months. The brief facts of the case, inter alia, are that Mam Chand PW3 lodged an FIR on 23.02.2006 at about 12.10 p.m. with the police station Narendra Nagar with the allegations that her daughter Reena was married to appellant on 18.11.2005 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. Informant had given sufficient dowry, at the time of marriage, however, appellant used to ill -treat her daughter on account of insufficient dowry. Appellant demanded Rs. 2,00,000/ - from the informant; on 22.02.2006, appellant along with Reena came to their house situated in New Tehri, on a motorcycle bearing No. UA 07 R 1652 and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/ - as dowry, thereafter, on the same day at about 09.00 p.m. went back on his motor cycle to Khadi; on 23.02.2006, landlord of the appellant informed him telephonically that Reena was not responding and she was lying on bed; having received such information, informant along with his wife and relatives reached Khadi in the rented house of appellant and found Reena was lying dead on the bed.
(2.) HAVING received the report, police registered the same as case crime No. 120 of 2006 under Section 304 -B IPC read with Section 498 -A IPC against the appellant. Prior to this report, at about 10.00 a.m. on 23.02.2006, Shiv Raj Singh Miyan (PW7) also informed the police that appellant along with his wife Reena was residing in a rented room in his house and appellant was missing from his house, however, Reena was lying unconscious on the bed. Having received this information, on phone, police endorsed the same in GD No. 19 at 10.05 a.m. and SHO A.K. Tyagi and SI Inder Singh Bisht reached on the spot at about 11.30 a.m. where they found Reena dead. They prepared the inquest report. There were injury marks on her neck and blood was oozing out from her nose. Some hairs and one confessional letter from the palm of Reena were recovered. Hairs, confessional letter, one meter telephone wire, broken bangles and pillow cover were seized from the spot and were kept in sealed covers. Confessional letter, so recovered, along with the diary and letter made available by the informant were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of handwriting. Hairs, so recovered from the palm of deceased Reena and specimen hairs of the accused were also sent for Forensic examination. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. Ajay Gairola (PW5) on the dead body of Reena. As per the postmortem report, death was caused due to strangulation. Having investigated the matter a charge -sheet was submitted.
(3.) AFTER committal of the case, trial court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498 -A, 302 IPC and in alternate, charge under Section 304 -B IPC was also framed against the accused appellant.;


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