- (1.) BARKAT All Zaidi, J. Despite the law being made stiff and stern, bride-burning cases, continue, unabated. It seems, law alone, cannot go with the problem, primarily because, the problem is essentially social in character and contents and needs to be tackled at that level.
(2.) A historical phenomena will be illustrative. In the days of Cromwell in England pickpocketing had become rife and rampant. In order to curb the same, death sentence was introduced, as the punishment and the offenders were publicly hanged. It was, however, discovered that there were cases of, pickpocketing in the crowd, which had assembled to witness the public hanging. What social measures are needed, for the eradication of the malady, is, for the Government and the sociologists to determine. The justification for this deviated diatribe is that, it is in the interest of society at large, that Judges should put forward their views, because, it is before them, that the depth and dimensions of the crime are unfolded. Their views need to be given new consideration. The utility of in-house suggestions, is, universally acknowledged. In this case, accused-appellants a husband and wife were tried in ST. No. 240 of 1995 on charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and the Trial Sessions Judge (Addl. Sessions Judge, Fasttrack Court No. 1) Jaunpur by judgment and order dated 13. 1. 2006, found them guilty for the offences under Sections 498-AI. P. C. and punished them each with 2 year R. I. plus fine Rs. 5, 000, in defaults months further imprisonment, undersection 304-B I. P. C. 10 year R. I. plus fine Rs. 1, 00, 000 each, in default 2 year further imprisonment and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with one and a half year Rigorous Imprisonment plus fine Rs. 5, 000, in default, 4 months further imprisonment, making all the sentences to run concurrently.
(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution version, the deceased girl Luxmi a//as Gudia, aged 30 years, was married to Vijay Singh, son of the accused-appellants, threeyear prior to the occurrence. Accused Kadak Bahadur, who'originally belonged to District Pratapgarh, was permanently residing at village Mariyahun, from where, the marriage of the deceased girl was performed. The deceased was the daughterof P. W. 8 Harendra Pratap Singh, younger brother of the informant Krishna Pratapsingh (who died during the Trial ). After the marriage, the deceased went to thehouse of the accused, where she stayed there for about 2-3 months. It is allegedthat whenever, the informant and his family members went to see the girl, shecomplained that her father-in-law was harassing her, for giving, a colour TV. andav. C. R. in dowry, and used to coerce her, for fulfilling the demands. It is said thatobsessed by their behaviour, informant took away the girl to his house. Thereaf ter, accused Kadak Bahadur forced the informant for doing Vidayee' and on his assurance, that the girl will not be teased, further she was sent to live with her husband again on 20. 2. 1995. Laxmi again informed the informant that her in-lawswere again harassing her, and on 14. 3. 1995, around 8. 00 O'clock in the morning, when the informant along with his brother- in-laws' son P. W. 1 Arvind arrived at the house of accused, they found Laxmi lying with burns. Laxmi told informant that they were late now and her father-in-law and mother-in-law after sprinkling Kerosene oil on her. had set her afire and decamped. It is alleged that thereafter, informant arranged a tractor and sent Laxmi along with Pawan son of Kailash of village Mariyahun to District Hospital, Jaunpur and himself returned to village Atariya P. S. Newariya to inform his family members. At 12. 00 O'clock, in the noon when the informant reached the hospital, he came to know that Laxmi was dead and her dead body was lying in mortuary. The informant, thereafter, got a written report Ext. Ka-1 typed, narrating all these facts, stating that accused Kadak Bahadur Singh and his wife Smt. Usha Singh after, giving her a beating for non-fulfilment of dowry had killed her by burning her and produced the report under his signature at P. S. Mariyahun District Jaunpur at 4. 20 P. m On basis of this report Ext. K-1, the police registered a case vide Case Crime No 55 of 1995 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the accused-appellants by preparing chick F. I. R (Ext. K-9), investigation of which was assigned to C. O. V. P. Singh and an entry to this effect (Ext. K-10) was made in the General Diary.;