RAJENDRA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The appellant Rajendra Prasad Pandey is the husband of the deceased Meena Devi who, according to the prosecution, was married to him in June, 1992. She was allegedly done to death on 12.2.1997 in her sasural in village Krishna Nagar, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad. The F.I.R. was lodged by her brother P.W. 1 Shiv Sagar Dubey, resident of Village Khutari, Police Station Maridhan, District Mirzapur at Police Station Naini, District Allahabad. The instant appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 21.7.2005, passed by Dr. Manjoo Nigam Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 354 of 1998, convicting and sentencing the accused appellant under Sections 302 and 318, I.P.C.

(2.) AS per the F.I.R., the complainant had performed a decent marriage of his sister according to his status and had given one Hero Honda motorcycle, cash of Rs. 40,000, jewellery and other household articles in dowry. The accused appellant was not satisfied and soon after the marriage he started treating the deceased with cruelty over the demand of dowry, particularly a VCR which could not be given by the complainant for financial difficulties. The accused appellant had also developed illicit relations with one Km. Arti. He continuously treated her with cruelty and ultimately killed her brutally by strangulation after assaulting her. At that time, she had six months pregnancy. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that there were ante mortem injuries but those injuries had not been mentioned in the inquest report.

(3.) WHILE pressing the bail prayer of the accused appellant during the pendency of the appeal, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Sohan Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004 (1) ACR 582 (SC) : 2004 (48) ACC 132, to stress the point that in the absence of a charge under Section 302, I.P.C, he (when charged under Section 304B, I.P.C.) could not be convicted thereunder for allegedly causing the death of the victim. Through the cited decision, the Apex Court has ruled that an accused neither charged under Section 302, I.P.C. nor under Section 109, I.P.C. is prejudiced due to non-framing of the charge under either of these sections. Conviction thereunder is wholly unsustainable when he was only charged for dowry death under Section 304B, I.P.C. On the other hand, the submission of the learned A.G.A. is that omission and defect in framing charge under Section 302, I.P.C. did not prejudice the accused appellant at all. But keeping in view the Supreme Court's decision in Sohan Lal's case (supra), we are of the view that the argument of the learned A.G.A. cannot be accepted.