- (1.) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 13-12-2001, passed by Sri Ram Das, the then Ses sions Judge, Bageshwar in S. T. No. 21 2001, whereby the appellant-Kundan Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period often years under section 304b I. P. C.-Both the ap pellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two years under section 498a I. P. C. However, the appellant-Mohan Singh was acquitted from the charge under section 304b I. P. C. All the sentences would run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that a report was lodged on 24-8-2000 at the patti patwari by one Anand Singh Rana alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter, Smt Pushpa Devi was solemnized three years' ago with the appellant Kundan Singh according to Hindu rites and cus toms. Immediately after the marriage, her husband used to assault her on account of demand of dowry and the 'jeth' & 'jethani' of his daughter i. e. Mohan Singh and Smt. Kamla Devi re spectively also used to harass Smt. Pushpa Devi by giving her physical and mental torture. Whenever Smt, Pushpa Devi came to her parental house, she used to narrate her parents the entire story about the dowry demand. It was further alleged in the FIR that Smt. Kamla Devi used to say the deceased that they would not keep her in the matrimonial house because Smt. Pushpa Devi (deceased) was not hav ing a child. The investigation was taken up as usual which culminated into the submission of the charge-sheet. After submission of charge-sheet the accused were committed to the Court of Ses sions for trial and the trial court framed charges against the accused persons. The accused persons denied charges levelled against them and claimed the trial. The prosecution in order to sup port its case examined as many as five witnesses. Anand Singh (P. W. 1) and Smt. Govindi Devi (PW2) were the fa ther and mother of the deceased re spectively. They have stated that the appellants were demanding dowry. When the demand was not fulfilled they started harassing and torturing the de ceased and committed cruelty upon her. It was further stated that the de ceased, who came to her parental house on the Ghee Sakaranti i. e. eight days before the death, had stated that her husband and her in-laws were de manding gold nettles chain and they were also harassing and committing torturing her in connection with dowry demand. But, her parents could not fulfill the dowry demand and the de ceased went to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, an information regarding her death had been received. The pros ecution has also adduced the evidence of Bhim Singh Rana (PW3), who proved the factum of panchayatnama (Ex. ka. 3 ). He also proved the chalan lash (Ex. ka. 4) and photo lash (Ex. ka. 5 ). Dr. N. D. Punetha (PW4) had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. The doctor opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained as such vis cera preserved. The doctor has proved the postmortem report (Ex. ka. 10 ). The prosecution has also adduced the evi dence of Kailash Chandra Toliya (PW5) the then Naib Tehsildar. He has stated that the husband of the deceased gave an information that his wife had con sumed poison. The father of the de ceased lodged a report before him. He was the Investigating Officer and he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. the accused persons de nied the prosecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Kundan Singh has stated in his evidence that the deceased has committed suicide, as she had not having a child. No defence evidence was adduced by the appellants.
(3.) THE learned trial court after ap praisal of the evidence on record, the appellants were convicted and sen tenced as mentioned above. I have heard the learned coun sel for the parties and perused the evi dence on record.;