MANOJ TAMTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-4-22
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 16,2013

Manoj Tamta Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) APPELLANT , by way of the present Appeal, is assailing the judgment and order dated 30.09.2008 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 2007, whereby learned Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, appellant was directed to further undergo additional imprisonment of six months. Appellant has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In default of payment of fine, he has been further directed to undergo additional imprisonment for one month. Brief facts of the case, inter alia, are that the appellant got married with Rekha daughter of Govind Prasad (PW1), on 21.5.2005; both of them were residing in a rented accommodation belonging to Tara Singh (PW5); in the night of 06.03.2007 at about 10 PM, PW5 noticed smoke coming out from the room of the appellant; having noticed the smoke, he rushed towards the room of the appellant and knocked the door; he entered the room and found burnt dead body of Rekha in the room and also found the appellant standing in the room; he informed the Police as well as the father of the deceased, PW1; PW1, after reaching on the spot, found the dead body of his daughter Rekha lying in the room and lodged the report with the Police Station Kotwali, Rudrapur stating therein that, at the time of marriage, he had given items worth Rs. 50,000/ - in the marriage of the appellant; the appellant used to harass Rekha (deceased) for bringing less dowry; after two months, appellant again started harassing her in respect of dowry; his daughter Rekha and his son -in -law were residing in the house of PW5 as tenants; almost two months before, appellant asked Rekha to bring Rs. 50,000/ - and one motorcycle from her parents saying if Rs. 50,000/ - and motorcycle are not given to him, he will kill Rekha; Rekha had narrated the entire story to him as well as to her mother; informant (PW1 herein) handed over Rs. 50,000/ - to the appellant to purchase a motorcycle one and half month before the incident; even after making the payment of Rs. 50,000/ - to the appellant, appellant did not stop harassing and beating Rekha. Today at about 10 PM, appellant has killed Rekha after burning her and her dead body was lying in the tenanted room of PW5. After the lodgment of the First Information Report, Police commenced the investigation. Dead body of Rekha was sent for post mortem examination and, as per the Post Mortem Report, cause of death was 90 per cent burning. Having investigated the matter, Police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Sessions Judge, after committal of the trial, was pleased to frame charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the trial, including informant PW1 and PW5 Tara Singh, PW2 Satnam Singh, PW3 Harish Ram, PW4 Dr. Uday Shankar, PW6 S.I. Jaswant Singh, PW7 Chandra Babu Maurya, PW8 N.P. Sah, PW9 Anil Singh, PW10 Mohan Chandra, PW11 Pradeep Kumar and PW12 Kamlesh Upadhyay were examined.
(2.) HAVING considered the entire material made available on record, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict and sentence the appellant accused by the judgment and order under appeal, as indicated above. We have heard Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H.C. Pande, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A.S. Gill, learned Senior Government Advocate assisted by Mr. V.P. Bahuguna, Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the records.
(3.) PW 1, the informant (father of the deceased), has nowhere stated that before or at the time of marriage, there was demand of any dowry from the side of the appellant. He, however, has stated that initially, appellant was fully satisfied with the gift items given at the time of marriage. However, after some time, he started demanding Rs. 50,000/ - and a motorcycle; the appellant threatened Rekha to kill her in case his demand for Rs. 50,000/ - and motorcycle is not met out. He has further stated that on 13.12.2006, he, after withdrawing Rs. 75,000/ - from his EPF Account, handed over Rs. 40,000/ - to the appellant for purchasing motorcycle. In the cross -examination, PW1 has stated that, at the time of marriage, appellant did not make any demand of dowry, and the appellant and his family were fully satisfied with the marriage; he has further stated during his cross examination that in his Pass -Book, there is no entry of withdrawal of Rs. 75,000/ -; further stated that the motorcycle, he is talking about, is now in the possession of PW1.;


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