- (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498 -A & 304 -B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur.
(2.) BY the impugned order the appellant Neeraj Kumar @ Basante, husband and Smt. Krishna Devi mother in law of the deceased were convicted under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/ - for the offence under Section 498 -A IPC and in default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. They were sentenced for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 -B IPC. For the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - with default stipulation of three months R.I. In brief the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: - I.Deceased Smt. Sushma Devi, aged about 20 years, was married with appellant Neeraj Kumar about 2 years prior to her death. In the marriage sufficient dowry was given by the complainant Gajraj, but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and they were insisting the deceased repeatedly to bring a gold chain and a motorcycle from her parents in dowry. They treated her with cruelty to press their demand of dowry. On 9.10.2002, brother of the deceased, Subhash Chandra came to the house of the appellants for 'Vida' of his sister, Sushma Devi. When he requested Neeraj Kumar and his mother then they did not permit the deceased to go with Subhash Chandra to her parental house and said that unless and until gold chain and motorcycle is given to them, they shall not permit her to go to her parental house. II.In the next morning the complainant came to know that his daughter Smt. Sushma Devi has been killed by the appellants for non -fulfillment of their demand of dowry and her dead body is lying inside the house of the appellants. The complainant with his family members came to village Ibrahimpur and found the dead body lying there. Complainant Gajraj scribed the First Information Report and gave it at the Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. On the basis of which, case Crime No. 176/2002 was1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498 -A & 304 -B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. By the impugned order the appellant Neeraj Kumar @ Basante, husband and Smt. Krishna Devi mother in law of the deceased were convicted under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/ - for the offence under Section 498 -A IPC and in default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to undergo imprisonmen1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498 -A & 304 -B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. By the impugned order the appellant Neeraj Kumar @ Basante, husband and Smt. Krishna Devi mother in law of the deceased were convicted under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/ - for the offence under Section 498 -A IPC and in default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. They were sentenced for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 -B IPC. For the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - with default stipulation of three months R.I. In brief the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: - III.Deceased Smt. Sushma Devi, aged about 20 years, was married with appellant Neeraj Kumar about 2 years prior to her death. In the marriage sufficient dowry was given by the complainant Gajraj, but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and they were insisting the deceased repeatedly to bring a gold chain and a motorcycle from her parents in dowry. They treated her with cruelty to press their demand of dowry. On 9.10.2002, brother of the deceased, Subhash Chandra came to the house of the appellants for 'Vida' of his sister, Sushma Devi. When he requested Neeraj Kumar and his mother then they did not permit the deceased to go with Subhash Chandra to her parental house and said that unless and until gold chain and motorcycle is given to them, they shall not permit her to go to her parental house. IV.In the next morning the complainant came to know that his daughter Smt. Sushma Devi has been killed by the appellants for non -fulfillment of their demand of dowry and her dead body is lying inside the house of the appellants. The complainant with his family members came to village Ibrahimpur and found the dead body lying there. Complainant Gajraj scribed the First Information Report and gave it at the Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. On the basis of which, case Crime No. 176/2002 was1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498 -A & 304 -B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. By the impugned order the appellant Neeraj Kumar @ Basante, husband and Smt. Krishna Devi mother in law of the deceased were convicted under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/ - for the offence under Section 498 -A IPC and in default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to undergo imprisonmen1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498 -A & 304 -B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. t for a period of six months. They were sentenced for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 -B IPC. For the offence under Sectt for a period of six months. They were sentenced for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 -B IPC. For the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - with default stipulation of three months R.I. In brief the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: - V.Deceased Smt. Sushma Devi, aged about 20 years, was married with appellant Neeraj Kumar about 2 years prior to her death. In the marriage sufficient dowry was given by the complainant Gajraj, but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and they were insisting the deceased repeatedly to bring a gold chain and a motorcycle from her parents in dowry. They treated her with cruelty to press their demand of dowry. On 9.10.2002, brother of the deceased, Subhash Chandra came to the house of the appellants for 'Vida' of his sister, Sushma Devi. When he requested Neeraj Kumar and his mother then they did not permit the deceased to go with Subhash Chandra to her parental house and said that unless and until gold chain and motorcycle is given to them, they shall not permit her to go to her parental house. VI.In the next morning the complainant came to know that his daughter Smt. Sushma Devi has been killed by the appellants for non -fulfillment of their demand of dowry and her dead body is lying inside the house of the appellants. The complainant with his family members came to village Ibrahimpur and found the dead body lying there. Complainant Gajraj scribed the First Information Report and gave it at the Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. On the basis of which, case Crime No. 176/2002 was1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Tiwari, Sessions Judge, Sitapur in S.T. No. 521/2003, under Sections 498 -A & 304 -B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. VII.registered and chick report Ext. Ka -1 and G.D. Ext. Ka -2 were prepared. registered and chick report Ext. Ka -1 and G.D. Ext. Ka -2 were prepared. VIII.In this case the inquest proceedings were conducted by the Naib Tahsildar in the presence of Sub Divisional Magistrate and the police personnel, inquest report is Ext. Ka -6 and the other formal papers Ext. Ka -7 to Ext. Ka -11 were prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem in sealed condition. I.O. prepared the site plan Ext. Ka -4 and after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet (ext. Ka -4). Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by a team of two doctors on 11.10.2002. In the postmortem examination cause of death could not be ascertained hence viscera was preserved for chemical examination. Post mortem report is Ext. Ka -12. Viscera was chemically examined and the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, in its report (Ext. Ka -13) reported that no chemical poison was found in the contents, sent for examination. IX.Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined P.W. 1 complainant Gajraj, P.W.2 Subhash Chandra, brother of the deceased, P.W. 3 Phoolmati, mother of the deceased, P.W. 4 Km. Bitta, minor sister of the deceased, P.W.5 Head Constable Ram Bilas Verma, who has prepared chick report and G.D., P.W.6 Hardayal Singh, C.O. Biswan, District Sitapur, who has conducted the investigation. P.W. -7 Raja Ram Gautam who conducted the inquest proceedings, P.W. 8 Shri Ajay Kumar, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased, P.W. 9 Pandit Shiv Ram Mishra, who performed the marriage ceremony of the deceased with the appellant Neeraj and P.W. 10 is Constable Ram Behari Sachan, who carried dead body for postmortem. X.Case of the defence was that she died natural death. On behalf of defence no evidence was produced. After appreciation of the evidence learned trial court convicted the appellants as mentioned above, hence this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel of the appellant that in this case no cause of death could be ascertained in the postmortem report and subsequently no poison was found in the viscera report. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the deceased died an unnatural death. He has argued that there can not be any presumption regarding unnatural death. IT was the duty of the prosecution to prove unnatural death. Regarding conviction under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498 -A IPC, it is submitted that evidence on this points was contradictory and unreliable, therefore, the appellants could not have been convicted under these sections. In the alternative it is argued that even if the offences under Section 498 -A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are taken to be proved against them even then they are entitled to be released as they have already spent about 5 years in custody. They are in custody since 8.5.2007. Learned A.G.A. has argued that in this case, the point raised before this Court was also raised before the trial court and the learned trial court, in its judgment, has dealt with this point in detail placing reliance on some medical authorities. It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the finding of the learned trial court, absence of poison in viscera report can not be a ground to hold that the death was natural.;