- (1.) These appeals were earlier heard and allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 13.3.2003. Against which, the State went in appeal and the Hon'ble Apex Court on 15.2.2011, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 552-553 of 2005, passed the following orders: ... we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal. Since the subject-matter relates to appeals of the year 1991, we request the High Court to rehear the appeals after affording opportunity to both parties and pass a considered order within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) By means of instant criminal appeal, the judgment and order dated 18.1.1991 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, in S.T. No. 100/90, State v. Nanhey and another, has been challenged, whereby the appellants Nanhey and Babu were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also with fine of Rs. 1,000 each with default stipulation, for the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. they were convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000 each with default stipulation for the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(3.) In brief, prosecution case was that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Madhuri, aged about 19 years, took place with the appellant Nanhey about four years ago from the date of her death. Co-accused Babu, is the elder brother of the husband of Smt. Madhuri. Smt. Madhuri gave birth to a female child who at the time of incident was aged about 9 months. Both the appellants were living in the same house. After marriage of the appellant Nanhey with the deceased, it is alleged that she was treated with cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. There was demand of one Cycle and one Transistor from her parents at the time of marriage and in this connection, appellants Babu and Nanhey had also talked with the complainant and his father.;