ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Praveen Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
(2.) Instant appeal has arisen out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge Sitapur on 01.11.2010 in Sessions Trial No.842 of 2009, State Versus Kamlesh and others, Case Crime No.382/09, under Section -498 -A, 304 -B, 201 I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Machhrehata, District - Sitapur, whereby learned trial court has acquitted accused Siya Ram, Smt. Mithilesh and Shanti for the charges under Section -498 -A, 304 -B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused appellant Kamlesh was convicted and sentenced under different sections as under : - (i) Section -304 -B I.P.C. - Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/ - with default stipulation of two months. (ii) Section - 498 -A I.P.C. : - Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5000/ - with default stipulation of two months. (iii) Section 201 I.P.C. : - Rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.5000/ - with default stipulation of six months. (iv) Under Section -4 of Dowry Prohibition Act : - Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/ - with default stipulation of one month. All the sentences to run concurrently.
(3.) According to the prosecution version, marriage of Pushpa Devi, aged about 25 years, daughter of complainant Rajendra Kumar was performed with accused -appellant Kamlesh Kumar about four years from the date of occurrence. One Splendor Honda motorcycle alongwith other articles and a cash of Rs.1,50,000/ - was given in the marriage but mother of appellant Shanti Devi, elder brother Siya Ram, his wife Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and father Ram Autar were not satisfied and were demanding a Maruti 800 car in dowry. Complainant was not in a fit financial condition to meet out the demand. It is stated in First Information Report, which was lodged on 23.5.2009, that complainant was trying to talk to his daughter on phone for the last one month but every time appellant Kamlesh was taking a false excuse for not connecting the call to Pushpa. Then complainant went to Bahadurpur Kharg and met appellant. He asked him about Pushpa. Appellant told him that she has gone in a marriage alongwith all the family members. At that time appellant was alone in the house then complainant went to Sohan Lal who was mediator in the marriage and asked him about his daughter. Then he came to know that Pushpa is missing for the last one month. All the family members of appellant were also absconding. Complainant asked appellant to take him to his daughter then appellant told him that Pushpa is no more. When complainant insisted that dead body be shown to him then appellant took him to his new house and opened the lock and asked the complainant to come inside the house. Complainant got suspicious and made a call to his house but appellant ran away from there. Muskan, aged about two and half years daughter of Pushpa, was also missing. First Information Report was lodged by the complainant on 23.5.2009 which was registered at case crime no.382/09, under section -498 -A, 304 -B, 201 I.P.C. and Section - 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition act.;