Khem Karan, P.K.Chatterjee, JJ. - (1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.10.1988, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri, convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life under section 304-B, to 2 years' R.I. under section 498-A and to one year R.I. under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) The appellant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Guddi, whose dead body was found lying on a cot inside his house on 8.11.1987. It was alleged in F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 that marriage in between the deceased Smt. Guddi and the appellant took place about ten months before the occurrence and ever since the marriage the appellant and his brother Rampal Singh were harassing and humiliating Smt. Guddi in connection with demand for dowry, against which she used to complain to her brother and parents. It was further alleged that on 8.11.1987 one Chandra Bhushan Singh informed the first informant Virendra Singh that his sister Smt. Guddi had been killed and on reaching there Virendra Singh found her dead body. The doctor, who performed the post-mortem examination on 9.11.1987 at 4 p.m., found ligature marks on the neck, with fracture of trachea. He also found some injuries on the nose and nostrils and laceration in the eyes. In his opinion, death was due to asphyxia, resulting from strangulation. After necessary investigation, the appellant and his brother Rampal Singh were put on trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pahalwan Singh as P.W. 1, Virendra Singh as P.W. 2, Dr. S.K. Shukla as P.W. 3, Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui as P.W. 4 and Hari Singh as P.W. 5. The accused Rampal Singh examined himself as D.W. 1.
(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charges framed against co-accused Rampal Singh were not established beyond all reasonable doubt, so he acquitted him of those charges. In so far as the charge against the appellant Brijesh Singh under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, was concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the same was not established beyond all reasonable doubts, so he acquitted him accordingly. In his opinion, charges under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code as well as under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act were well established against appellant Brijesh Singh alias Pappu. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him accordingly, as mentioned earlier.;