Kripa Shanker Shukla vs The State Of U.P.
2017 Latest Caselaw 4753 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

						AFR
 
					    Reserved on 12.09.2017
 
					    Delivered on 21.09.2017
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 272 of 2001 
 
Appellant :- Kripa Shanker Shukla 
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. 
 
Counsel for Appellant :- B.P. Singh Bisen, A.P. Singh Bisen
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
				  Sessions Trial No. 430 of 1999, 
 
				  Crime No.130 of 1999, 
 
				  U/s 498-A & 306 IPC 
 
				  Police Station- Sandana, 
 
				  District- Sitapur.
 

 
Hon'ble Satya Narain Agnihotri,J. 

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by appellant/accused Kripa Shanker Shukla against the impugned judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Sitapur passed in Sessions Trial No.430 of 1999 arising out of crime No.130 of 1999 U/s 498-A and 306 IPC whereby learned Additional Judge hold guilty to the appellant/accused and sentenced him under Section 306 IPC Three (3) years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 498-A Three (3) years rigorous imprisonment, in default to undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further ordered that if the amount of fine recovered from the appellant then it shall be paid to the deceased's father/complainant.

2. According to document Exhibit Ka-1 FIR and statement of PW-1 Shiv Bodhan Lal Tiwari the following case of the prosecution emerged:-

Complainant Shiv Bodhan Lal Tiwari married his daughter Smt. Madhubala on 02.05.1999 with appellant/accused Kripa Shanker Shukla according to hindu rituals. On the next day Madhubala was sent with appellant/accused to his house and it was decided by the parties that on 03.05.1999 Madhubala be sent back on 05.05.1999 to her parental home. On 05.05.1999 complainant with his son had gone to the house of appellant/accused situated in Ralamau, Police Station Sandana. In the beginning appellant/accused and his father assured to send Madhubala but later on they demanded Rs.25,000/- in cash or scooter in dowry. Complainant expressed his inability then the appellant/accused with his father refused to send Madhubala and addressed to complainant with abusive and filthy language. Later on complainant came back to his house without her daughter. On the next day on 06.05.1999 complainant came to know from someone that his daughter has been murdered by the appellant and his father. Receiving this information, the son and other relatives of the complainant had gone to the house of appellant/accused at Ralamau, Police Station Sandana and they brought dead body of Smt. Madhubala at Lucknow at about 20.10 pm.

3. Later on complainant got scribed Exhibit Ka-1 and submitted it to the Police Station Bazarkhala, District Lucknow, pursuance of which Exhibit Ka-11 formal FIR was registered and the investigation commenced.

4. The ACM, IV, Lucknow conducted inquest on the dead body of Smt. Madhubala which is Exhibit Ka-4 on record. ACM, IV prepared other related documents for the post-mortem of dead body of Smt. Madhubala and after sealing it dead body was sent to mortuary. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. A. Prasad alongwith Dr. Sunil Kumar Gupta. According to post-mortem report and evidence of PW-4 Dr. A. Dayal, the post mortem of dead body was conducted at 12.00 p.m. on 07.05.1999. The rigor mortis was passed from upper extremity whereas it was passing from lower extremity. Doctor further stated that all organs of the body was congested. There was no anti-mortem injury upon the dead body. Doctor further stated that the hymen was torned and it was admitted three fingers easily. According to doctor PW-4, the death of deceased Madhubala might have occurred in between evening of 05.05.1999 to morning of 06.05.1999.

5. The investigation was started by police and the place of occurrence was visited on 07.05.1999. The Site plan Exhibit Ka-10 was prepared. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against appellant Kripa Shanker Shukla alongwith co-accused Radhey Shyam. Since the cause of death could not be ascertained at the time of post mortem and the vicera of the body were preserved which were sent for chemical examination. The report of chemical examination is Exhibit Ka-13 is on record. According to this report the poison of aluminium phosphate was found in the vital organs of the body which were preserved by the doctors.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined prosecution witness (in short Pws) PW-1 Shiv Bodhan Lal Tiwari complainant who stated on oath that he has married his daughter on 02.05.1999 with the appellant Kripa Shanker Shukla according to hindu rituals. She was M.A. passed. On the date of Vidai (adieu) 03.05.1999 it was decided between the parties that Smt. Madhubala would be sent back to her parent house on 05.05.1999. The complainant had gone on 05.05.1999 to bring his daughter but appellant/accused alongwith his father Radhey Shyam refused to send Smt. Madhubala and insulted to complainant and did not permit to complainant to meet her daughter. Thus, the complainant come back to his house without her daughter. PW-1 further stated on oath that on 06.05.1999 in the morning someone informed him that his daughter Madhubala has been died. Receiving this information, his son and other relatives went to the house of the appellant/accused Ralamau, Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur where they found the dead body of Smt. Madhubala and they brought dead body of Madhubala at the house of the complainant.

7. Complainant further stated on oath that thereafter he got scribed FIR Exhibit Ka-1 from Laxmi Shanker Shukla and submitted it in the office of police station Bazarkhala. This witness was cross examined by the appellant/accused but nothing could be come out in favour of the appellant/accused.

8. PW-2 Sri Sanjay is the son of complainant and brother of deceased Smt. Madhubala who supported the statement of PW-1 complainant and admitted in his examination that he had not gone to the house of appellant/accused to bring deceased Madhubala and his father told him that the appellant/accused alongwith his father demanded Rs.25,000/- in cash and scooter in dowry and insulted to the complainant Shiv Bodhan Lal Tiwari and refused to permit him to meet with his daughter deceased Smt. Madhubala. Thus, this witness is a formal character and adduced secondary evidence.

9. PW-3 Sri Mahek Singh, retired Circle Officer, Deputy S.P. stated on oath that he had started investigation on 08.05.1999 and recorded the statement of PW-2 Sri Sanjay on 25.02.1999 and other witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet Exhibit Ka-2 against appellant/accused alongwith his father Radhey Shyam.

10. PW-5 Sri Pramod Shanker Shukla, ACM, IV, who conducted inquest upon the dead body of Smt. Madhubala proved on oath that on 06.05.1999 he had prepared inquest report of deceased Smt. Madhubala through S.I. Daya Shanker which is Exhibit Ka-4 and other related documents from Exhibit ka-5 to Ka-8 were also prepared and after sealing the dead body it was sent for mortuary.

11. Pw-6 Sub Inspector Sri Mulk Ram Yadav proved that on 07.05.1999 constable from the police station Bazarkhala reached with FIR Crime No.Nil/1990 at Police Station Sandana where this fact was recorded in G.D. No.30 at 13.20 O'clock and he started investigation witness proved GD No.20 Exhibit Ka-9 and also proved the site plan Exhibit Ka-10.

12. PW-7 Sri Ghanshyam adduced secondary evidence and proved that in pursuance of Exhibit Ka-1 FIR by the complainant and the chik FIR was recorded by PW-8 constable Sri Ram Autar Verma and this fact was also entered in the G.D. No.41 of 06.05.1999 at 20.10 O'clock of Police Station Bazarkhala, District Lucknow.

13. PW-8 Sri Ram Autar Verma proved that on 06.05.1999 he recorded the FIR at Crime No.Nil/1999 in pursuance of application of Shiv Bodhan Lal Tiwari at 20.10 pm which is Exhibit Ka-11 on record. This fact was also entered in G.D. of police station, which is Exhibit Ka-12 on record.

14. Appellant/accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that deceased Madhubala married with him on 02.05.1999 and was brought by him at his house situated in village Ralamau, Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur on 03.05.1999. He further admitted that vidai (adieu) of Madhubala was decided by the parties at the time of marriage on 05.05.1999. He further stated that he was residing at village while the deceased Madhubala was resident of city Lucknow and she told to the ladies of the village that his father betrayed her and married with a person who is residing in a village and have no employment. He further stated that deceased Madhubala was sent on 05.05.1999 with complainant Shiv Bodhan Lal Tiwari to Lucknow where she died. The fact of death was came into knowledge of the accused on 06.05.1999. Receiving information he alongwith his father had gone to the house of complainant, where police of Bazarkhala arrested him and confined in the Police Station Bazarkhala, kept about 3 to 4 days, later on submitted to the police of Police Station Sandana from where he was sent to jail.

15. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the argument of both the parties and considering the evidence of prosecution hold guilty to appellant/accused under Section 498-A and 306 IPC and was acquitted from other offences under Section 304-B IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Other accused Radhey Shyam was acquitted from all offences.

16. State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal and Court also not issued notice for the enhancement of punishment to the appellant/accused.

17. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri B.P. Singh Bisen and learned AGA Sri P.K. Singh and gone through the entire record.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not press appeal on merit and would only made submission regarding quantum of sentence.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is true that deceased Smt. Madhubala was the wife of the appellant/accused. It was the duty of the appellant to protect her wife but he failed to discharge his obligation and Smt. Madhubala died after 4 days from her marriage. He further submitted that learned Trial Court awarded sentence of 3 years in both offences and the accused had served about 2 years and 3 months inside the prison that is why the accused shall be punished with the sentence which he has served already.

20. Learned AGA has not opposed this proposition.

21. In the light of argument of learned counsel for the appellant, I finds that it is an ill luck that a young lady who was married 4 or 5 days prior had ended her life due to the misdeed of appellant/accused. The evidence of prosecution demonstrates that when the father of the deceased had gone to brought her daughter to her parental house, appellant/accused refused to send her with her father and the father was insulted by the appellant/accused. Not only this complainant was restrained from meeting with deceased Smt. Madhubala. Thus, the appellant subjected mental cruelty to the deceased Smt. Madhubala and in that utter depression she had committed her life to an end. In these circumstances, appellant/accused aggravated the depression of his wife who ultimately died due to swelling poison of aluminium Phosphate.

22. Since the misdeed of appellant/accused is of condemnable nature but I think that if the accused is sentenced for 2 years and 3 months with rigorous imprisonment then the ends of justice shall be served.

23. In view of the above noted discussion, the conviction of the appellant/accused is uphold and the term of sentence is reduced from 3 years to 2 years 3 months and the order of fine is maintained. If the fine is recovered from the appellant/accused then the half of the amount shall be paid to the complainant Shiv Bodhan Lal Tiwari as ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

24. With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed.

25. Let this judgment be notified to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the compliance and report of compliance be submitted within one and a half month.

26. The record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith as early as possible.

Order Date :- 21.09.2017

Sarika

(S.N. Agnihotri, J.)