Nanhakke & Another vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 3392 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 4                                                                    AFR
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 474 of 1996
 
Appellant :- Nanhakke & Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- D.Sahai,Aakash Dixit,Pradeep Srivastava,Prem Kr Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.9.1996 in S.T. No.993 of 1994 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in Crime No.163 of 1993, P.S. Gangaghat, district Unao convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s 498-A IPC for three years imprisonment and u/s 304-B IPC for seven years R.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case in brief are that as per the prosecution case, the marriage of the informant's daughter was solemnized two years prior to the incident. Her husband Nanhakke, father-in-law Babu Lal and mother-in-law Smt. Shanti Devi used to demand watch and bicycle from her and on non-fulfilment of the said demand, the accused-appellant used to cruelly treat her and tortured the deceased for want of the same and on account of the said harassment, the deceased on 15.4.1993 had committed suicide at the eastern outer signal of Ganga Ghat Railway Station. A day prior to the said incident when the deceased committed suicide, the accused had also made great harassment to the deceased. The information about the incident was given to the informant Smt. Sukhdevi who is the mother of the deceased by her another son-in-law Rajesh on which she arrived at the place of incident and saw that her daughter's body was cut into pieces by a train. The in-laws of the deceased had run away from the house which was found to be locked. The FIR was lodged on the written report of Smt. Sukhdevi on 16.4.1993 at P.S. Kotwali, district Unnao case crime no.38 of 1993 u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC and the same was endorsed in the G.D of the concerned police station which are marked as Ext.Ka-3 and G.D is marked as Ext.Ka-4. The investigation of the case was carried out and the Investigating Officer after investigation has submitted charge sheet (Ext.Ka-12) against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared which was marked as Ext.Ka-11.

3. The charges were framed against the accused u/s 498-A and 304-B IPC by the trial court who denied the same and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in support of it's case has produced the P.W.1 Smt. Sukhdevi, P.W.2 Rajesh, P.W.3 Chandrika Prasad, P.W.4 Ashok Kumar, P.W.5 Arun Kumar Shah, P.W.6 Head Constable Sohan Lal Singh, P.W.7 Jarakhan Lal, P.W.8 S.I. Chotey Lal, P.W.9 Ashok.

5. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused Babu Lal (now dead) had stated that wrong charges have been framed against him and further stated that a false FIR has been lodged by Rajesh who is the Sardu of accused Nanhakke. He stated that the information about the incident was given to the parents of the deceased by him. The deceased had gone to attend the call of nature where she was crushed by a train.

6. Accused Nanhakke stated in his statement that he is the husband of deceased and has been falsely implicated by Rajesh who is his Sardu. Information about the incident was sent to his mother-in-law. His mother-in-law and her sister demanded money from him. Smt. Shanti Devi also reiterated the same version and stated the she has been falsely implicated by Rajesh who is the Sardu of Nanhakke.

7. P.W.1 Smt. Sukhdei has reiterated the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR and stated that the accused-appellant along with his family members have demanded watch and bicycle from the deceased which she refused to fulfill on account of poverty. The deceased was being harassed by the accused-appellant and his family members for the same. The harassment was so much so that the deceased committed suicide by jumping on a railway track. The information about the incident was given to her by her son-in-law Rajesh and she arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the dead-body of her daughter whose head was cut by the train. The in-laws of the deceased were not found present at the house as the same was found to be locked. On the spot two sisters of the appellant Nanhakke were found to be present and no one else were present. She performed the last rites of her daughter. She proved the FIR which was lodged by her after performing last rites of the deceased. She got the report written by one Chedi on her dictation which was read-over to her on which she put her thumb impression which was marked as Ext.Ka-1.

8. P.W.2 Rajesh who was the brother-in-law (Jeeja) of the deceased has also narrated the prosecution case as has been stated by P.W.1. He has also stated before the trial court that the deceased was being harassed by the accused persons for watch and bicycle. It was stated by him that the accused Nanhakke was not found at his house. The dead-body of the deceased was lying at the railway track. He had given the information of the incident to his in-laws.

9. P.W.3 Chandrika Prasad and P.W.4 Ashok Kumar are the cousin brother of the deceased and they have also reiterated the prosecution case regarding the harassment of the deceased by her in-laws for watch and bicycle and they have also received information that the deceased was lying at the railway track.

10. P.W.5 Dr. Arun Kumar Shah stated that he was posted at T.B. Hospital Unnao and on 16.4.1993 at 2.15 p.m., he has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He submitted that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries. He has proved post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-2.

11. P.W.6 Head Constainable Sohan Lal Singh was examined by the trial court who has stated that on 16.4.1993 he was posted at police station G.R.P as Head Moharrir and he had registered the FIR of the present case and prepared the Chik FIR and also endorsed the same in the G.D and proved the same on the same day which was marked a Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-3.

12. P.W.7 Constable Jarakhan Lal has filed an affidavit before the trial court stating that he along with Ram Nagina Singh had taken the dead-body of the deceased for post-mortem in a sealed condition on 16.4.1993 while he was posted as constable at police station G.R.P., Unnao.

13. P.W.8 S.I. Chotey Lal Verma is the Investigating Officer of the case and has submitted that on 16.4.1993 he was posted as S.I. at police station G.R.P. Unnao and he has conducted the inquest of the deceased along with Tehsildar Shailendra Kumar Chauhan and proved the inquest report as Ext. Ka-6. He had also prepared Photo Lash, Challani Lash, letter to R.I and C.M.O Unnao under his writing and signature which has been marked as Ext.Ka-7 to Ext.Ka-10 and he has prepared the inquest report in the presence of Tehsildar.

14. P.W.9 Ashok Kumar deposed before the trial court that he was posted as Circle Officer, Unnao on the date of incident and he has conducted the investigation of the case and recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared the site plan and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and proved the same as Ext.Ka-12.

15. The appellant no.2 Babu Lal died during the pendency of the appeal, hence his appeal has been ordered to be abated by this Court vide order dated 21.5.2008.

16. Heard Sri Akash Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant and Mohd. Airaj Siddiqui, learned AGA for the State.

17. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant along with his father Babu Lal and mother who were the in-laws of the deceased were put up for trial and have been convicted by the trial court by the impugned judgment and order for the offence in question and the mother who was old lady and not able to stand was brought by two persons before the trial court, hence she was given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. by the trial court and has been released. He further submitted that the allegations levelled against the appellant that he had tortured the deceased for demand of watch and bicycle which was not fulfilled by the mother of the deceased, on account of the said harassment and torture, the deceased committed suicide is false. The appellant has also not been charged and tried for the offence u/s ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence his conviction under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC is against the evidence on record. The deceased met with an accidental death while she had gone to attend the call of nature near railway track and she was run over by the train on account of which she died. He argued that the present FIR has been lodged by the mother-in-law (P.W.1) in collusion with Rajesh (P.W.2) who happens to be the Sardu of the appellant as they failed to pay money to them for not lodging the present FIR. He submitted that the appellant out of seven years conviction, has already serve out more than three years in jail and the trial court has wrongly convicted him under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC whereas from the evidence on record, it is evident that the present case would not travel beyond Section 306 IPC as the deceased herself has committed suicide and the sentence under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC should be set-aside for which the appellant has already undergone more than 3 years in jail and his period of sentence may be reduced to already undergone. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant be given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C and may be released from jail.

18. Learned AGA on the other hand has vehemently opposed the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the deceased who was 20 years old girl whose marriage was performed two years prior to the incident with the appellant, was being cruelly treated for want of watch and bicycle by the accused-appellant and his family members and on non-fulfilment of the same, she was harassed so much that she was compelled to commit suicide, hence she committed suicide on a railway track. He further argued that though it may be a case of suicide but taking into account that the marriage between the appellant and deceased was solemnized two years prior to the incident and there being demand of dowry for want of which she was harassed by the appellant and his family members she committed suicide, then too the offence u/s 498-A and 304-B IPC is made out and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the said offence which does not call for any interference by this Court.

19. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires from the evidence that admittedly the marriage between the appellant and the deceased was performed two years prior to the incident. As per evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is apparent that the deceased was being harassed by the accused-appellant and his family members for demand of watch and bicycle regularly and a day prior to the incident, the deceased was also harassed and that she was compelled to take such a drastic step to end her life, hence she has committed suicide on a railway track and her head was found to be cut along with one hand as it appears from the post-mortem report. The deceased suffered injuries on her person on account of run over by the train which has also been opined by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. The case of the appellant that the deceased had gone to attend the call of nature where she met with the accident does not find support from the evidence on record as the trial court has scanned from the evidence that the defence case which has been set-up by the accused does not appear to be correct. Moreover, it has come to the conclusion that the deceased was being harassed for watch and bicycle which could not be fulfilled by her mother (P.W.1) and on account of regular harassment by the accused-appellant, the deceased committed suicide on a railway track. The trial court has rightly recorded the finding of conviction against the appellant under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC taking into account the presumption drawn against him in view of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and has awarded minimum punishment of 7 years R.I u/s 304-B IPC.

20. The last contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant be given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. does not appear to be correct as the appellant is the husband of the deceased and it was his duty to take care his wife and further to make an atmosphere in the house which could not have compelled the deceased to take such a drastic step that she ended her life because of the harassment and torture made by the appellant along with his family members and a 20 years old girl who had been married to the appellant two years back had to meet such a fate. Hence the appellant cannot be given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C.

21. The finding of conviction recorded by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC requires no interference by this Court and his conviction and sentence by the trial Court is hereby upheld.

22. The appellant-Nanhakke is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He is present in the Court. He is directed to surrender before the court concerned within two weeks' from today, failing which the C.J.M. concerned is directed to take him into custody and send him to jail to serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court.

23. The present appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

24. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to send the certified copy of this order to the District Judge concerned for its compliance.

06.06.2016

Gaurav