- (1.) The challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 23.11.1995, passed by the then Special Judge, Unnao in Session Trial No.80 of 1992, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to Case Crime No.139 of 1991, Police Station-Sohramau, District-Unnao, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, & 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.09.1991 the mother of the deceased submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police, Unnao stating therein that her daughter was married with the appellant-Rajendra and 'Gauna' ceremony was also solemnized two years ago in which sufficient dowry was given but the appellant-Rajendra and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they castigated the deceased. When son of the complainant went for 'Vidai' of her sister then TV, Scooter, Fan and a sum of Rs.20,000/- were also demanded in dowry. The husband of her daughter, Rajendra, used to beat her daughter for dowry regarding which her daughter had told her. Just fifteen days before the incident her daughter had come on 'Rakshabandhan' alongwith son-in-law Rajendra. When on third day her son-in-law asked her daughter to go with him, her daughter said that she does not want to go to her matrimonial home because she is being tortured by the son-in-law and his family members. At that time, the son-in-law started beating to her daughter in her presence. The village Pradhan Sri Suresh Tiwari was called and on assurance of being provided TV, Fan, Scooter and Rs.20,000/- her son-in-law agreed to perform 'Vidai' of her daughter. She further stated that at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening one person came to her house and stated that her daughter is ill, upon which, she went to the matrimonial house of her daughter where she found that her daughter was dead. Upon this application, a case at Crime No.139 of 1991, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present appellants. The appellants were charged for the offences which they had denied and claimed trial.
(2.) The prosecution has examined Ram Kumar Dixit as PW-1, Shiv Pal as PW-2, Smt. Medana (complainant) as PW-3, Suresh Chandra Tiwari as PW-4, Dr. R.C. Kushwaha as PW-5 and Jaydev Singh Verma (Investigating Officer) as PW-6. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the strange part of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the appellants even denied the marriage and have shown their ignorance whether she was subjected to post-mortem or not. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity and the deceased has committed suicide. After the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Ram Ashrey the village Pradhan has been examined as DW-1. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly sentenced them. During course of pendency of this appeal, the appellant no.2-Chandrika (father-in-law) has died. Therefore, the appeal filed by Chandika stands abated. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was a beautiful lady and she wanted to marry someone else and did not like the present appellant therefore she committed suicide. It has also been submitted that appellant-Rajendra himself took the deceased to the hospital and the witnesses of fact, except Smt. Medana PW-3, have not supported the prosecution version. It has also come in the evidence that the First Information Report was lodged after consultation with another son-in-law. There was no injury on the body of the deceased and the appellants have been wrongly convicted. In the last, learned counsel for the appellants relying upon the case K. Prema S. Rao and another vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others, 2003 1 SCC 217 has submitted that the appellant-Rajendra has remained in Jail for about four years, therefore, a lenient view may be taken. But as far as the case of Smt. Jamuna Devi is concerned, there is no sufficient evidence against her, therefore, she deserves to be acquitted.;