PRAFULLA C.PANT,J. - (1.) This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C) is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.2.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2008, whereby ap ­pellant-Chandan Singh has been convicted under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC), and sentenced to rig ­orous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the par ­ties and perused lower Court record, Prosecution story in brief is that PW1 Jagannath Singh, complainant, is resi ­dent of Kulial Gaon, Patwari Circle Saal, District Champawat. He got his daughter Kamla married to accused/appellant Chandan Singh Mehra in February 2006. Since the marriage was against the wishes of parents of accused/appellant Chandan Singh Mehra, he (Chandan Singh Mehra) started living with his wife in Village Kulial Gaon. Out of the wed-lock one daughter born. On 4th of August, 2007, ac ­cused/appellant Chandan Singh expressed the desire that he wanted to stay independ ­ently with his wife and daughter at Tanak-pur. The complainant Jagananth Singh al ­lowed the three to stay in his house built at Tanakpur. The complainant sent his wife to make arrangements for his daughter and son-in-law and the grand-child, at Tanak ­pur. After making necessary arrangements complainant's wife came back to the vil ­lage, and accused/appellant Chandan Singh, his wife Kamla (deceased) and the daughter started living at Tanakpur. On 16.8.2007, the complainant Jagannath Singh received telephonic information that his daughter Kamla has committed suicide. He immediately rushed for Tanakpur and reached there by night. However, by then police had already taken dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report (Ex. A3) and got post-mortem examination done. According to the prosecution story, complainant went to the police station to get lodged First Information Report against accused/appellant Chandan Singh but the police advised him to get into compromise with accused as in their view it was a case of suicide by hanging. Complainant Jagan ­nath Singh went from pillar to post and finally moved an application in September 2007, under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On said application, under orders of the Magistrate, the case was registered by the police at po ­lice station Tanakpur as Court case No. 1 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under section 498-A, 306 IPC and one punishable under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In said application, under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, (Ex. A1) the complainant Jagannath Singh alleged that his son-in-law Chandan Singh (appellant) used to drink alcohol and beat his wife Kamla Devi. He also alleged that he had earlier demanded Rs. 50,000/- through his elder uncle-in-law (TAO). It is also alleged by the complainant that his daughter was subjected to cruelty and she has been murdered. It is stated in the report (Ex. A1) that even a mobile phone of his daughter was snatched and sold by the appellant. And when she went to make a call to her parents from PCO (public call office), she was dragged back to the house and beaten. The crime was fi ­nally investigated by P.W. 15, Sub-Inspector Naresh Chand, who on completion of in ­vestigation submitted charge sheet (Ex.A13) for trial of accused Chandan Singh under section 306 IPC.
(3.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., ap ­pears to have committed the case to the Court of sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, on 28.1.2008, after hearing the par ­ties, framed charge of offence punishable under section 306 IPC to which accused Chandan Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.I Jagananth Singh (complainant and father of the deceased), P.W.2 Usha, a neighbour (declared hostile), P.W. 3 Meera, another neighbour, P.W. 4 Ranjeet Singh, also a neighbour, P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Sharma, witness of inquest re ­port, P.W.6 Smt. Munni Devi (declared hos ­tile), P.W. 7 Constable Bhoopal Ram Arya, P.W.8 Dr. D.S. Nagi, P.W.9 Dr. Naresh Chandra, both members of the team of Doctors who conducted post-mortem ex ­amination, P.W. 10 Janki Devi mother of the deceased, P.W.11 Sub-Inspector K.R. Tamta, who partly investigated the crime, P.W.12 Sub-Inspector Dhirendra Kumar, who took dead body of the deceased in his possession and got prepared inquest report (Ex. A3), P.W. 13 Constable Vimla Rawat also witness of the inquest report, P.W.14 Harish Chandra Sati, Dy. Superintendent of Police who also investigated the crime for sometime to see if the offence alleged to have been committed is covered under sec ­tion 304-B IPC, and P.W. 15 Sub-Inspector Naresh Chand, who concluded investiga ­tion in respect of charge of offence punish ­able under section 306 IPC. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the ac ­cused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he stated that he did not abet the deceased to commit the suicide. He also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. However, no evidence in defence was ad ­duced. The Trial Court after hearing the parties found accused Chandan Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable un ­der section 306 IPC. After hearing on sen ­tence, the trial Court sentenced the convict to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also directed him to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of which the convict was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. Aggrieved by said judgment and or ­der da.ted 8.2.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2008, this appeal is preferred by the con ­vict (in jail).;