Sugam vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 146 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved on: 26.08.2021
 
Delivered on: 02.03.2022
 
Court No. - 88
 

 
Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 374 of 2018
 

 
Appellant :- Sugam
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,Divya Ojha,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

1. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the record.

2. This appeal is preferred by the accused-appellant through Jail Superintendent, Jhansi under Section 374 (2) read with Section 383 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2018 and order of sentence dated 09.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Jhansi in Session Trial No. 337 of 2014 'State of U.P. vs. Sugam' (arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Gursaray, District- Jhansi), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304-B I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for two months under Section 498-A I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It was further directed that 80% of the fine amount shall be paid to the legal representative of the deceased. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. In brief, prosecution case is that informant Mani Ram has lodged the first information report on the basis of written complaint on 07.06.2014 at 00.15 A.M. alleging therein that he married his daughter Lalita aged about 21 years two years ago with accused-appellant Sugam. The accused-appellant and his family members were demanding a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry for the last two years and were harassing his daughter for its non-fulfillment. His daughter told this fact to him but due to his weak financial condition he could not meet the demand of dowry. It is further alleged that on 06.06.2014, the accused-appellant and his family members murdered his daughter by hanging her. The information regarding death of his daughter Lalita Devi was conveyed to him by the accused-appellant. On the information, he went to the house of in-laws' of his daughter and saw the dead body of his daughter was laying on the ground and all the family members of her in-laws have absconded.

4. Ct. Laxmikant PW7 has drawn the Chek Report (Ex.Ka.11) on 07.06.2014 at 00.15 A.M. on the basis of written complaint (Ex.Ka.1) and by making necessary entry in GD (Ex.Ka.12) vide Rapat No. 3 on 07.06.2014 at 00.15 A.M. and registered the Case Crime No.326 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused persons namely Sugam (appellant), Nand Ram, Niraj, Sonu and Ram Kishore. The investigation of the case was undertaken by C.O. Subodh Gautam (PW5). On 07.06.2014, he copied the written complaint and GD in the CD and also recorded the statements of Ct. Laxmikant Tripathi, informant Mani Ram. On the same day, he visited the place of occurrence along with informant and prepared site-plan (Ex.Ka.6). In the site-plan he has shown the place where dead body of the deceased was found on cot and the place of the wood plank in the roof from which rope was hanging and also shown the other things present in the house. The inquest of the dead body was conducted by Tahsildar Gulab Singh (PW6) on 07.06.2014. He appointed Mani Ram, Sita Sharan, Kamlesh Kumar, Shivram Singh and Rajjan as Panch and completed the inquest at 9:30 AM. The Panch has opined that the deceased died due to hanging and to ascertain the real cause of death postmortem is needed. PW6 Gulab Singh Tehsildar prepared Panchayatnama (Ex.Ka.2), Photo Nash (Ex.Ka.7), letter to Medical Officer (Ex.Ka.8), Challan Nash (Ex.Ka.9), sealed the dead body and prepared sample Seal (Ex.Ka.10) and sent the dead body for postmortem through Ct. Sriram Verma and Home Guard Amar Singh along with police papers.

5. The autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by a team of doctors consisting Dr. Udai Srivastava (PW3) and Dr. Bal Govind. At the time of postmortem age of the deceased was found about 21 years. Rigor mortis was found present all over the body. Foul smell was coming out from the body. Mouth was open with protruded tongue. Serosanguinous discharge was coming out from mouth and nostrils. Following antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-

(i) Abrasion (4 x 6) cm on the back of left shoulder.

(ii) Ligature mark (28 x 1.5) cm around the neck between chin and thyroid cartilage. Base of mark was hard and parchment like. Mark was directed upward & backward obliquelly not completely encircled the neck leaving about a gap of 6 cm in left side of the neck.

(iii) Abrasion (2 X 7) cm on the right cheek, clotted blood present.

6. On internal examination, membrane of the brain and brain were found congested. Mouth, tongue and pharynx were found congested. Muscles of larynx and vocal cords were found damaged. Trachea hyoid bone was found fractured. Pleura and preicardial sac were found congested. The heart was found filled with blood. Lung was found congested and stomach was found empty. Semi-digested food was found in small intestine. Faecal matter was found in large intestine. Lever, spleen, pancreas, kidneys were found congested. Urenary bladder was found empty. The doctor has opined that the deceased has died about 18 hours before the postmortem due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Dr. Udal Srivastava prepared the postmortem report (Ex.Ka.5) in his own handwriting on which Dr. Bal Govind Sankhwar endorsed his agreement.

7. On 12.06.2014, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Sita Sharan and Brij Kishore, both brothers of the deceased. On 19.06.2014, he also recorded the statement of Smt. Phool Kunwar, mother of the deceased. The accused-appellant was arrested on 21.06.2014 at 5 A.M. in front of the door of his house. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellant was recorded wherein he has denied the occurrence. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of witnesses of the Punchnama, Dr. Udal Srivastava and also the statements of persons who have given affidavit regarding non-involvement of other accused. He also collected the marriage card of accused-appellant and deceased (Ex.Ka.3) and prepared memo in this respect (Ex.Ka.5). Thereafter, investigation of the case was transferred to Avinash Kumar Gautam (PW8) who after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.13) against accused-appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the cognizance was taken on 18.09.2014 and after complying the provisions of the Section 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 18.9.2014 for trial.

8. After hearing the prosecution and learned counsel for the accused-appellant, the charges of offence punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in alternative charge of Section 302 I.P.C. were framed against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined informant Mani Ram (father of the deceased) as PW1, Sita Sharan (brother of the deceased) as PW2 and Brij Kishore (brother of the deceased) as PW4 as witnesses of the fact. Prosecution has examined formal witnesses Dr. Udal Srivastava as PW3 to prove the postmortem report (Ex.Ka.5) and the cause of death of the deceased. Investigating Officer CO Subodh Gautam was examined as PW5 to prove the steps taken in investigation and the site-plan (Ex.Ka.6). Gulab Singh Tehsildar was examined as PW6 to prove panchayatnama (Ex.Ka.2), Photo Nash (Ex.Ka.7), letter to Medical Officer (Ex.Ka.8), Challan Nash (Ex.Ka.9), sample seal by which dead body of the deceased was sealed (Ex.Ka.10). Prosecution also examined Ct. Laxmikant as PW7 to prove the check report (Ex.Ka.11) and GD Rapat No. 3 dated 07.06.2014 at 00.15 A.M. (Ex.Ka.12). Investigating Officer CO Avinash Kumar Gautam was examined as PW8 to prove the charge sheet (Ex.Ka.13).

10. Learner lower court has considered the arguments raised by learned Additional Government Counsel and learned counsel for the accused-appellant and after appreciating the evidence available on record and the statements of PW1 Mani Ram, father of the deceased, PW2 Sita Sharan, brother of the deceased, PW4 Brij Kishore, brother of the deceased, has held that the prosecution has proved that the marriage of the deceased has taken place two years before her death i.e. within seven years of marriage and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- were being demanded as dowry by the accused-appellant soon after the marriage and till the death of the deceased. Learned lower court has also held that the deceased has died on account of hanging after beating her and she met with homicidal death. Therefore, learned court below has held that the charges against appellant-accused for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are proved beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304-B I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for two months under Section 498-A I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that learned lower court has misinterpreted the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has not considered the evidence adduced by the defence and illegally held that the accused was demanding a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry. It is further submitted that no complaint was ever made by the deceased or her parents to the police or higher authorities regarding demand of dowry and consequent harassment. There is no evidence on record to show that any Panchayat was called regarding dispute of demand of dowry and consequent harassment upon the deceased. Learned lower court has not considered the evidence of the defence witnesses DW1 Smt. Gulab Rani and DW2 Munna Lal. It is further submitted that deceased has committed suicide by bolting the door from inside the room and her dead body was taken out from the room after breaking the door. The above circumstance rules out that the deceased met with homicidal death. It is further submitted that PW1 Mani Ram has admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter has returned to his house after about one and a half months after marriage. He has also admitted that his daughter went to her in-law's house on second time and thereafter she did not returned to his house. PW2 Sita Sharan has stated in his deposition that he was not present when his sister had complained to family members regarding demand of a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that PW2 has admitted that after persuasion, his sister was happily sent to her in-law's house. It is proved from the statement on oath of DW1 Gulab Rani that accused-appellant was not present in the house at the time of occurrence and had returned to the house at about 6 P.M. then he came to know about the occurrence. There is no connection between the suicide of the deceased and demand of dowry and harassment. The deceased has suspicion that accused-appellant is having illicit relationship with some other women on account of which she used to quarrel with her husband and committed suicide.

12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has further submitted that learned lower court has illegally held the accused-appellant guilty and has illegally sentenced him for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is liable to be set-aside and accused-appellant is liable to be acquitted.

13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submitted that from the evidence of PW1 Mani Ram (father of the deceased), PW2 Sita Sharan (brother of the deceased) and PW4 Brij Kishore (brother of the deceased), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the marriage of the accused-appellant with deceased has taken place just before two years of her death. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that after some time of marriage the accused-appellant was demanding a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry and harassing the deceased on account of its non-fulfillment. From their statements it is also proved that after one and a half months of marriage the deceased had visited her parental house and told her parents and family members regarding demand of dowry and consequent torture being committed by the accused-appellant. From their deposition it is also proved that they had persuaded the deceased to go her in-law's house after scolding her husband Sugam. It is also proved from the statement on oath that the information regarding death was given by accused-appellant and thereafter all the family members of accused-appellant escaped from their house which establishes that accused-appellant has committed some wrong deed. Lower court after appraisal of evidence in detail and invoking the presumption of Section 113-B of Evidence Act has rightly held the accused-appellant guilty for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further contended that learned court below keeping in view the injury found in the postmortem report has legally awarded appropriate sentence which cannot said to be disproportionate. He has submitted that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. Firstly, I would like to discuss the testimony of witnesses of the fact. In this case informant PW1 Mani Ram (father of the deceased), PW2 Sita Sharan and PW4 Brij Kishore, both brothers of the deceased) are witnesses of the fact. PW1 informant Mani Ram has stated on oath that the deceased Lalita Devi is his daughter. At the time of her death she was aged about 21 years. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused-appellant about two years before the occurrence as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After some time of marriage, the accused-appellant and his family members started demanding a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry. His daughter had told him several times regarding the demand of motorcycle and Rs.50,000 as dowry but due to his bad financial condition he could not meet the demand of dowry. On the day of occurrence, the accused-appellant along with his family members had killed her daughter by hanging. Accused-appellant had informed him over phone regarding the death of his daughter. Thereupon, he along with his family members reached the village Aasta where they found the dead body of his daughter lying on a cot and the accused-appellant and his family members had absconded from their house. At the time of her death, the child of the deceased was about 6-7 months old. He has further stated that he got the written complaint (Ex.Ka.1) written by Kamlesh who read the same to him thereafter he signed on it and lodged the first information report. Thereafter, inquest of the dead body of his daughter was conducted in presence of Shiv Ram Singh, Rajjan, Sita Sharan, Kamlesh and he also signed on inquest report (Ex.Ka.2). In cross-examination, he clarified that he had received the information regarding death of his daughter at about 08:00 P.M. over phone, thereafter, he told his wife Smt. Phool Kunwar and his son Sita Sharan. He had proceeded to village Aasta from his house at 10 P.M. and when they reached there, they found the grandmother of accused-appellant sitting at the door of the house having the child of the deceased in her lap. The accused-appellant and other family members have absconded. He denied the suggestion that there was any division between accused-appellant and Nandram and they were living separately. He further clarified that the dead body of his daughter was lying on a cot. He had gone to police station to lodge the report in the morning at 8 AM. He further stated that he had called Kamlesh by phone for ascribing the written complaint who came to him at 10:30 AM at village Aasta. He further stated that 10-15 persons had gone to village Aasta along with him. The police had arrived at about 10:00 A.M. at the place of occurrence and inquired from him and other persons present there. He has further stated that the marriage of his daughter has taken place happily and after farewell in the marriage his daughter returned to his house after about 15-20 days and remained in his house for about one month. Thereafter, she went to her in-law's house. After about one and a half months of the marriage when his daughter returned to his house, she had complained him regarding demand of dowry and consequent torture committed by the accused-appellant. Thereafter, he persuaded his daughter to go to her in-law's house and she had gone to her in-law's house happily. He further stated that his daughter was taunted by the accused-appellate that her parents had not given dowry. Perusal of examination-in-chief and cross-examination of informant Mani Ram (PW1) reveals that there is no contradiction regarding demand of motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry and consequent torture committed upon the deceased. Therefore, the statement of PW1 Mani Ram wholly inspires confidence and is reliable. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the accused-appellant that marriage has taken place happily is concerned, it is of no consequence because the demand of motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- was made by the accused-appellant after few days of the marriage. From the statement of PW1, it is also proved that he had persuaded the accused-appellant for not demanding the dowry and had also scolded him. It is also proved that marriage of the deceased with the accused-appellant has taken place just before two years from the appraisal of the evidence of PW1 Mani Ram.

15. It is proved that the deceased met with unnatural death within seven years of marriage and the accused-appellate was demanding dowry after few days of the marriage and continued till death of the deceased.

16. PW2 Sita Sharan is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with accused-appellant on 24.06.2012. The marriage card (Ex.Ka.3) is on record which also corroborates his statement. He has also stated that after marriage the accused-appellant started demanding motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry and he used to assault the deceased on account of its non-fulfillment. He has further stated that whenever his sister came to her parental house she used to tell that accused-appellant was demanding motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry. He has also corroborated the version of PW1 Mani Ram that he along with his family members persuaded the accused-appellant not to demand dowry but he kept on demanding the dowry. He had received information on phone that his sister has died due to hanging. Thereafter, he reached the village Aasta and found the dead body of his sister lying on a cot and the family members of the accused-appellant have absconded from their house. The proceedings of Panchayatnama had taken place before him. He has further stated that he reached at village Aasta at 10:30 PM and informed the police orally about 11 P.M. At that time police had not registered the case and had returned after seeing the dead body and again came at 8 A.M. on the next day. He has further stated that his father had not gone to lodge the case in the night. He has further stated that in the morning two police personnel had come and got conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased. In the inquest report (Ex.Ka.2) it also finds mention that police had received information on 07.06.2014 at 00:15 A.M. and reached at the place of occurrence for Panchayatnama at about 8 A.M. PW6 Gulab Singh, Tehsildar has proved that he had conducted the Panchnama (Ex.Ka.7) on 07.06.2014 and completed it at 9:30 A.M. Thus, the statement of PW2 gets corroboration that police had reached at about 8 A.M. on the next day and conducted the Panchayatnama. He has further stated that he has complained to Nandram at Aasta regarding demand of dowry by the accused-appellant but he had not complained it to police authorities. From the perusal of whole statement of PW2, there is no contradiction on material point and his statement is consistent and he has given the details of persuading the accused-appellant for not demanding motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry and not to harass the deceased. From his statement, it is also proved that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused appellant on 24.06.2012 and the deceased met with unnatural death on 06.06.2014, meaning thereby, the deceased has died within two years of marriage and demand of dowry and consequent torture was being made by the accused-appellant after few days of marriage which continued till death of the deceased.

17. PW4 Brij Kishore, brother of the deceased, is witness of the fact and he has deposed that marriage of his sister had taken place in the year 2012. From the marriage card and from the statement of PW2 Sita Sharan, it is proved that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused-appellant on 24.06.2012 but due to pressure of the court atmosphere PW4 has stated in examination-in-chief that marriage had taken place on 24.02.2012 which is insignificant contradiction. From the perusal of his statement, it appears that he is illiterate person and has put his thumb impression on his statement as PW4. Therefore, such minor contradiction is of no consequence. He has further stated that whenever his sister came to her parental house she used to tell that accused-appellant is demanding a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry and after persuasion he has sent his sister to her in-law's house. He has further stated that his sister died on 06.06.2014 and the information regarding which was given to his brother Sita Sharan (PW2) over phone. He has further deposed that other persons also came to know that his sister died due to hanging and thereafter he along with several persons had gone to her in-law's house where his sister was found lying. He has also deposed that when they reached the in-law's house of his sister, the family members of accused-appellant had absconded. He has further stated that Daroga Ji had taken the marriage card of his sister and prepared memo (Ex.Ka.4). He has also identified his thumb impression on the memo by which marriage card of the deceased was taken in possession by the police. In cross-examination, he has stated that the accused-appellant is financially poor. He has further stated that whenever his sister came to her parental house, every time they used to persuade his sister and sent to her in-law's house. Perusal of the evidence of PW4 reveals that there is no material contradiction which makes his statement unreliable. The statement of PW4 is consistent and inspire confidence. It is proved from his statement that the deceased has died within two years of marriage due to unnatural death.

18. PW3 Dr. Udal Srivastava has proved the postmortem report (Ex.Ka.5) and has opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that injury nos. 1 & 3 may be caused due to friction by hard object. He has further stated that there is least chance of injury no.2 as a result of suicidal hanging. From the perusal of internal examination, it is proved that hyoid bone was found fractured and the muscles of the neck was damaged. Dr. Udal Srivastava (PW3) has stated that the ligature mark found in the neck of the deceased is rarely found in case of suicidal death.

19. In above circumstance, keeping in view the whole evidence I am of the opinion that the deceased met with homicidal death. The defence of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that his wife has suspicion that he has illicit relationship with some other women on account of which she used to quarrel with him and committed suicide by hanging, but from the perusal of postmortem report and the statement of PW3 Dr. Udal Srivastava it is proved that the deceased has met with homicidal death and not by suicidal death. From the perusal of site-plan which is proved by PW5 Circle Officer Subodh Guatam, it is proved that he has not found broken door at the time of preparation of site-plan which rules out the theory of the suicidal death, moreover, no evidence has been given by the defence regarding name of any women with whom the deceased has suspected that her husband was having illicit relation and the prosecution witnesses have also not been cross-examined on this point. Therefore, in above circumstance, the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that his wife has committed suicide on account of suspicion that her husband has illicit relation with other women is nothing but a cock and bull story. In view of the evidence as analyzed above, it is proved that the deceased has met with homicidal death on account of demand of dowry which comes within the definition of unnatural death within seven years of marriage. Therefore, it is proved that there is proximity between the demand of dowry and homicidal death of the deceased. The other circumstance which is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant and his family members have absconded after the occurrence which also corroborates that offence was committed by the accused-appellant with the help of his family members.

20. Here is relevant to reproduce the Section 304-B I.P.C. which reads as under:-

"304-B. Dowry death.-- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

21. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :-

"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death."

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

22. The conjoint effect of the provisions contained in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act is that if the prosecution seeks conviction of a person for the offence of dowry death, it is obliged to prove as to the following facts :-

(a) The death :

(i) is of a married woman;

(ii) has occurred within the seven years of marriage of the victim;

(iii) is caused by burns or bodily injury, or has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; and

(b) Cruelty or harassment was meted out to the victim:

(i)     by her husband or any of his relatives;
 
(ii) for or in connection with any demand for dowry; and
 
(iii)   soon before her death.
 
23.	The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the case of dowry death in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab [reported in (2008) 13 SCC 233], has held that "In cases of dowry deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence. That could be either direct or indirect. It is further held that agreement of dowry is not always necessary even demand of dowry and other ingredients being satisfied." 
 
24.	In the case of Bachni Devi and another vs. State of Haryana through Secretary of Home Department [reported in 2011 (2) ACC 3 SC], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where it is proved by evidence that the deceased met with unnatural death (suicidal or homicidal) within seven years of marriage and it is shown that accused were demanding dowry then it will be presumed that accused has committed the dowry death.
 
25.	In above circumstances, from the evidence on record following facts are proved beyond reasonable doubt:-
 
(i) That the deceased met with homicidal death because of hyoid bone being fractured, muscles of neck and cartrid artery was also found damaged and injury was found on the face.
 
(ii) That the deceased met with unnatural death within seven years of marriage.
 
(iii) That the accused-appellant was demanding motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- just after the marriage which continued till death of the deceased.
 

26. In above circumstances, ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. is satisfied and the presumption against accused shall arise that he has committed the dowry death of the deceased. So far as the evidence of DW1 Gulab Rani, grandmother of the accused-appellant, is concerned, she has not given any evidence regarding suspicion of deceased that accused-appellant has illicit relationship with other women. She has only stated that accused-appellant was not present at the time of occurrence. She has also admitted that at the time of death of the deceased, the deceased has a child of about 6-7 months old. She has admitted that the deceased was not suffering from any illness. Likewise, DW2 Munna Lal has also stated that deceased has committed suicide by bolting the door from inside the room, but no such thing like broken door has been found by the Circle Officer Subodh Gautam (PW5) at the time of preparation of site-plan, therefore, in above circumstance the defence witnesses are unreliable and no reliance can be placed on their evidence.

27. I am in agreement with the finding recorded by the court below that accused-appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. I am also in agreement with the finding of the court below that from the evidence on record it is also proved that the deceased met with homicidal death and the court below has rightly sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304-B I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for two months under Section 498-A I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which cannot be said to be disproportionate.

28. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed, accordingly. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2018 and order of sentence dated 09.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Jhansi against the accused-appellant is, hereby, confirmed and maintained.

29. Let a copy of this order along with the lower court record be transmitted forthwith to the learned trial court for compliance.

Order Date :- 02.03.2022

Vikas

(Mohd. Aslam, J.)