Harsh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Alkesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2005 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No.180 of 2004 (State v. Swamideen and others) , under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, by which each accused/ appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced for the offence under Section 498A IPC with rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along-with fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of default in payment of fine with one month's additional rigorous imprisonment; under Section 304B IPC with rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along-with fine of Rs.5000/- and in case of default in payment of fine with three months' additional rigorous imprisonment; under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along-with fine of Rs.15,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine with six months' additional rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along-with fine of Rs.2000/- and in case of default in payment of fine with two months' additional rigorous imprisonment and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that it is proved from the evidence on record and the defence evidence had been produced by the accused/ appellants on account to the effect that the appellants were not present in Qasba Bhola Nagar Jhinjhak, Police Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat at the time of alleged incident; that the husband of appellant Smt. Kamla Devi was on police duty at Agra and she was residing there with him since before the incident and accused appellant Rama Kant @ Ravikant, husband of the deceased was attending a meeting in village Gobana, Post Chirahuli, Auraiya, which started at 11 a.m. and lasted upto 4.00 p.m. on 02.12.2003; that on the date of incident some miscreants entered the house of appellant Rama Kant @ Ravikant in his absence and caused death of his wife; that on returning home to get the information of death of his; that a false FIR was lodged by uncle (Chacha) of the deceased; that the trial court acted wrongly in disbelieving the evidence of DW-3, the landlord of the accommodation, in which the appellant Smt. Kamla Devi was residing with her husband in Fatehabad, District Agra; that the prosecution has failed to establish charges against the accused/ appellants beyond reasonable doubt and it is not proved from the evidence on record that accused/ appellant Smt. Kamla Devi ever made any demand of dowry or treated the deceased with cruelty in connection with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and the accused/ appellants are entitled for an order of acquittal.;