- (1.) ALOK K. Singh, J. Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 3. 3. 1990, passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kheri in Ses sions Trial No. 309/88, convicting the ap pellant Shiv Kumar (father-in- law), Smt. Kamla (mother-in-law), Avadhesh Kumar (husband), Kamlesh (servant) under sec tions 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 304-B/34, I. P. C. , 498-A, I. P. C. and section 201, I. PC. and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, 10 years, one year and one year respectively and at the same time acquitting them of the charges under section 306, I. P. C. and section 302/34, I. P. C.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts as born out from the record are that the complainant's real sister namely Guddi was married to appellant Avadhesh Kumar about three years prior to the incident. Her in-laws used to say that why she does not end her life so that they may perform second mar riage of Avadhesh Kumar. Ultimately on 20. 9. 1984 all the appellants probably killed her by giving her poison and cremated her dead-body. They did not wait for the members of is mother's family and per formed her funeral. The brother of the deceased lodged a typed report whereupon the investigation started and finally the charge-sheet was submitted. The charges were framed against all of them under sec tions 3/4 D. P. Act, 306/498-A/201, I. P. C. and also additional charges under sections 302/34, I. P. C. and 201, I. P. C. to which they denied and claimed trial. In support of this case the prosecution examined following witnesses: PW 1, Jagdish Prasad, complainant of the case. PW2, Bipin Vihari. PW 3, Durga Prasad Awasthi, S. H. O. In the statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. they said that witnesses have deposed due to enmity and it was also said that deceased died due to ailment of chol era and she was taken for treatment to Hargaon Hospital from where she was re ferred to Sitapur Hospital and while she was being taken to Sitapur Hospital she died on the way. By the time she was brought back to the village on a tractor trolley, it had become night. Therefore, in the early morning an information was sent to her mother's house through Sohan Lal (D. W. 2 ). They waited till late evening and when nobody came, they performed her funeral as the body was being decom posed. In defence D. W. 1, Hriday Behari Bajpai, D. W. 2 Sohan Lal, D. W. 3, Kamlesh Kumar and D. W. 4 Jagdev were examined. Besides two papers were also filed. D. W. 1 is the pharmacist who proved Ext. Kha-1. D. W. 2 Sohan Lal is the village barber who had gone to inform at her mother's house. He also told that the deceased died due to cholera. D. W. 3 Kamlesh Kumar is Village Pradhan who told that the deceased was suffering from cholera and that due to enmity with one Madan the appellants have been implicated. D. W. 4 Jagdav be sides proving an invitation card Ext. Kha-1 also told that the deceased was suffering from cholera. After discussing the evidence the learned Court below convicted the appel lants in the aforesaid manner. Aggrieved with the judgment and order in question this appeal has been preferred.
(3.) BEFORE entering into the merits of the case, it may be mentioned that ap pellant No. 2 Kamla, mother- in-law has already died and vide order dated 18. 2. 2003 this appeal has been abated in respect of her. I have Sri Ashok Bajpai, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Husaki Abbas, learned A. G. A. and perused entire lower Court record.;