Allahabad High Court
Ramadhar vs State Of U.P. on 8 July, 2021
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 536 of 1998
Appellant :- Ramadhar
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Salil Kumar Srivastava,Jalaj Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,J K Gupta
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated 21.09.1998 whereby learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Lakhimpur Kheri has convicted the appellants namely Ramadhar and Shyam Lal (since dead) and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 618/1995, arising out of case crime No. 71/1995, P.S. Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
During the pendency of appeal Shyam Lal (Appellant No. 2) had died and as such the appeal stood abated vide order dated 06.01.2021 passed by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant Ramadhar, learned Additional Government Advocate and also perused the record.
The first information report vide case Crime No. 71/1975 was lodged under Sections 498A/304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri, by the complainant Ram Krishan son of Ram Bharose with allegation that her sister Lilawati was married three years before lodging the first information report to Ramadhar (appellant no. 1). After the marriage her husband and father-in-law demanded five bigha of land as dowry. Since he could not fulfill the dowry demand, his sister was killed.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial court while convicting and sentencing the appellants did not consider the statement of PW-3 Babu Ram who stated that there was no demand of dowry by the accused during the lifetime of Bharose (father of the deceased) and the complainant.
It is further submitted that the learned trial court also did not consider the fact that as per medical evidence, it is evident that the deceased Lilawati did not die unnaturally.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate submits that the appellant Ramadhar who is husband of the deceased had brutally murdered his wife. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized before three years of the incident, accordingly, it is submitted that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 B I.P.C. could not be interfered with and the judgment of conviction is valid.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.
Vide letter dated 27.02.2021, the Jail Superintendent, Lakhimpur Kheri has informed that the appellant has completed his entire term on 01.07.2021. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused-appellant Ramadhar has already completed his entire term in jail and as per the instructions received from his client, the said appellant does not want to assail the order of conviction and sentence dated 21.09.1998.
Since the appellant no. 1 Ramadhar has already completed sentence of imprisonment as reported by the Superintendent of Jail, Lakhimpur Kheri, it would not be appropriate to enter into the merit of the case and the ends of justice would meet if the said appellant is released from jail.
Since the appellant no. 2 Shyam Lal has died and the appeal is abated, the sentence of imprisonment passed against him has become unworkable.
In view of the above, the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.09.1998 passed by the trial court is upheld. However, since the appellant no. 1 Ramadhar has already completed the sentence of imprisonment on 01.07.2021 as per report dated 02.07.2021 (supra), the appellant no. 1 Ramadhar is directed to be released from jail forthwith in case he is not wanted in any other case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court as well as the Superintendent Jail, Lakhimpur Kheri for compliance. The trial court record, if received, shall also be transmitted forthwith to the trial court.
Order Date :- 8.7.2021
R.C.
