Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HANUMAN & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hanuman & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 47 of 1998 [2007] RD-AH 13733 (8 August 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Criminal Appeal No.47 of 1998

Hanuman & Tilka @ Sunara              vs.                State of U.P.

Hon.Amar Saran,J.

Hon.Shiv Shanker,J.

(Delivered by Hon.Shiv Shanker,J.)

This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the impugned judgement and order dated 19.11.1997 passed in  Sessions Trial No.196 of 1995, State vs. Hanuman and another under Sections 498-A,304-B I.P.C., P.S. Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar by Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar, convicting the appellant No.1 Hanuman for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and  further sentencing him  for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. for life imprisonment were ordered to be run concurrently  and appellant No.2 was convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. and was released on probation.

Brief facts arising out of this appeal is that Ayodhya Prasad Maurya s/o Santram lodged the F.I.R. on 5.4.1995 at about 11.20 P.M. against both the appellants by stating that his daughter Smt. Janki Devi was married with Khudbud s/o Hanuman appellant no.1 about four years ago. Sufficient dowry was given in her marriage but both the accused appellants were not satisfied  and they were demanding one motorcycle in the dowry  being only one son and having  20 bighas land. Informant could not fulfil demand of dowry due to having no funds. Therefore, she was subjected to cruelty by both the accused, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law.  Two or three days ago, she was taken by her father-in-law from her parent's house.  Thereafter,  she  was  being  treated  by  her  father-in-law  and mother-in-law  by  beating  due  to  non-fulfilment  of    such    demand   of dowry.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               On 5.4.1995 at about 4.00 p.m.  kerosene  oil   was sprinkled upon her by her father-in- law and mother-in-law and Reserved

Criminal Appeal No.47 of 1998

Hanuman & Tilka @ Sunara              vs.                State of U.P.

Hon.Amar Saran,J.

Hon.Shiv Shanker,J.

(Delivered by Hon.Shiv Shanker,J.)

This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the impugned judgement and order dated 19.11.1997 passed in  Sessions Trial No.196 of 1995, State vs. Hanuman and another under Sections 498-A,304-B I.P.C., P.S. Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar by Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar, convicting the appellant No.1 Hanuman for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and  further sentencing him  for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. for life imprisonment were ordered to be run concurrently  and appellant No.2 was convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. and was released on probation.

Brief facts arising out of this appeal is that Ayodhya Prasad Maurya s/o Santram lodged the F.I.R. on 5.4.1995 at about 11.20 P.M. against both the appellants by stating that his daughter Smt. Janki Devi was married with Khudbud s/o Hanuman appellant no.1 about four years ago. Sufficient dowry was given in her marriage but both the accused appellants were not satisfied  and they were demanding one motorcycle in the dowry  being only one son and having  20 bighas land. Informant could not fulfil demand of dowry due to having no funds. Therefore, she was subjected to cruelty by both the accused, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law.  Two or three days ago, she was taken by her father-in-law from her parent's house.  Thereafter,  she  was  being  treated  by  her  father-in-law  and mother-in-law  by  beating  due  to  non-fulfilment  of    such    demand   of dowry.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               On 5.4.1995 at about 4.00 p.m.  kerosene  oil   was sprinkled upon her by her father-in- law and mother-in-law and set fire  upon her and bolted the door of the room from outside. Several persons of the village reached there. One Raghav Prasad Kurmi had given the information regarding the incident to the first informant on the same day at about 8.00 P.M.. After getting such information, informant, his cousin Ramnarain, Atma Prasad Tiwari, Parmatma  Prasad Mishra and Mainudeen reached there at Itwa Government  Hospital,  where she was got admitted for her treatment by her mother-in-law and other persons also of the village. After seeing the informant and other persons, mother-in-law of the deceased had run away from there. The complainant in the presence of persons, who accompanied him, inquired from his daughter regarding the incident then she stated that her father-in-law had sprinkled kerosene oil upon her on 5.4.1995 at about 4 P.M. and set fire upon her due to demand of dowry. Her mother-in-law was also involved. Her husband has no knowledge and he was not involved in this incident. The statement of his daughter was already recorded by concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, written report was submitted in the concerned police station. Case was registered against both the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 326 and 307 I.P.C.. The investigation of this case was entrusted to S.O. Sri Anjani Kumar.  

After entrustment of the investigation, I.O. recorded the statement of  the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. After eleven days of the alleged incident she died on 16.4.1995 at about 2.45  p.m. due to sustaining burn injuries. Post mortem was conducted by Doctor. Following ante mortem injuries were found on the deadbody of the deceased:- Superficial to deep burn all over body except lower part of abdomen and back of left wrist joint. Underneath pas present. Doctor has opined the cause of death due to septicaemia and toximia as a result of ante mortem burn.

After the completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed  against  both the accused persons for the above offences. After commitment of the case by concerned Magistrate, both the accused Hanuman and Smt. Tilka Devi were charged for the offence under Section 498-A and 304-B I.P.C., who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They  had denied all the allegations made against them and stated that they have been implicated falsely due to enmity.

Prosecution had examined  the fact witnesses  P.W.1 Ayodhya Prasad, P.W.2 Atma Prasad, P.W.3 Ramanarain, P.W.4 Dr.G.C. Singh, who conducted the post mortem, P.W.5 Dr.Ghan Shyam Singh, who examined the victim, P.W.6 Circle Officer, Sri Shiva Mangal, P.W.7 Vidya Charan Tiwari, who prepared the inquest report etc. of the deceased,  P.W.8 Dr. S.K.Mahraj, who gave the certificate before recording her dying declaration and after that  P.W.9 Inspector  Anjani Kumar Upadhyay, first Investigating Officer and P.W.10 Ram Bharos, who recorded dying declaration of the deceased.              

No oral and documentary evidence had been produced on behalf of the accused in their defence. After considering the whole evidence on record and submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, both appellants had been convicted and awarded sentences as mentioned above.

Feeling aggrieved by it, both the accused filed the present appeal in this Court.

The case of the appellant no.1 Hanuman has been abated by this Court after receiving the information from the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding his death. Therefore, only one appellant Smt. Tilka alias Sunra   remains.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the whole evidence on record  and also the judgment and order of the trial court.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended  that she has not been convicted for the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C.. However, she has been wrongly convicted for the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. on the same evidence. It is further contended that there is evidence on record that the deceased was taken in burning condition to the hospital by her. Therefore, her conduct was also natural to take the deceased to the hospital in injured condition. It is further contended that the dying declaration of the deceased  was recorded by concerned Magistrate on the same day before lodging the F.I.R. wherein no allegation has been made against the present appellant.  Only allegation has been made against the father-in-law Hanuman, who had  died during the course of appeal. It is further contended that false evidence has been given by prosecution witness regarding the offence of cruelty.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has urged that there is sufficient evidence on record of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 regarding the offence of cruelty against the present appellant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased. The appellant was   not  involved in the dying declaration of the deceased given to the concerned Magistrate. She has stated against her father-in-law. Therefore, she was rightly convicted for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C..

There is no dispute that the marriage between the deceased and one  Khudbud, son of the appellant was solemnized about four years ago of the incident. P.W.1 Ayodhya Prasad, who is the father of the deceased and P.W.3 Ramnarain , who is cousin of P.W. 1 have been examined by prosecution. They have stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were demanding  more dowry after marriage as motorcycle and such demand could not be fulfilled. Therefore, she was subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Three days ago of this incident, deceased was living at her parent's house and she was taken by her father-in-law t after that she was burnt by her father-in-law after sprinkling kerosene oil. Later on she died due to sustaining burn injuries. After perusal of the cross examination of these witnesses, nothing has come in their cross examination for disbelieving such evidence of cruelty. Therefore, trial court has rightly believed by the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.3 against the appellant.

Thus trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence of cruelty. In such circumstances, there is no force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

In the end  this appeal has no force. Hence, dismissed  and conviction and sentence awarded by trial court is hereby affirmed against the appellant no.2 Tilka alias Sunara.    

Dt.8.8.07

Asha


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.