State Of U.P. vs Udaibhan And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 17713 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Udaibhan And Another on 17 May, 2024

Author: Rajiv Gupta

Bench: Rajiv Gupta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89490-DB
 
Court No. - 45
 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 68 of 2003
 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Udaibhan And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
 

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

Ref: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application

1. The instant government appeal has been filed with the delay of 19 days.

2. Cause shown in the affidavit filed for condoning the delay is sufficient.

3. Delay condonation application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

4. Office to allot regular number to this appeal.

Order on Appeal

5. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State- appellant and perused the record.

6. The instant government appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, District Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1999 (State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and 2 Others) connected with Session Trial No. 232 of 1999 (State Vs. Gyan Devi), arising out of Case Crime No. 227 of 1998, under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, by which the accused- respondents, Udaibhan and Smt. Gyan Devi, who are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased- Rani @ Kalpana are acquitted under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C.

7. As per prosecution case, the deceased- Rani @ Kalpana was married to one Raju @ Ramraj on 15.04.1998, who is the real brother of the accused- respondent no. 1. It is alleged that after the said marriage, the accused- respondents alongwith her husband and father-in-law started making additional demand of dowry and for the non-fulfillment of the demand of additional dowry used to torture her, maltreated her and subjected her to cruelty and subsequently on 31.10.1998 she was done to death. After getting knowledge of the said incident Raghuveer Singh, brother of the deceased- Rani @ Kalpana lodged the first information report at Police Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, which was registered vide crime no. 227 of 1998 against two accused- respondents, Udaibhan, Geeta Devi alongwith Kanhaiyalal- father-in-law of the deceased, Raju @ Ramraj- husband of the deceased and Sudha, sister-in-law of the deceased.

8. After registration of the said case, the investigation was entrusted to P.W.-5, Jagdish Prasad, Circle Officer, who reached the place of incident and conducted the inquest. After conducting the inquest the body was despatched through constable for post mortem examination.

9. An autopsy was conducted on the person of the deceased on 01.11.1998 by P.W.3, Dr. A.K. Tiwari, who has noted the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-

"1. ??? ??? ??? 12 ????? x 2 ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? temporal bone ??? ??? ???

2. ??? ??? ??? 14 ????? x 3 ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???- 1 ?? 4 ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? parietal bone ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? sharp ??? ??? ??? ??? brain deep ?? ?? ??? ?? brain matter ???? ??? ???

3. ??? ??? ??? 4 ????? x 2 ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???-2 ?? 2 ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? parietal bone sharp ??? ??? ???"

10. The investigating officer after recording the statements of the relevant witnesses and collecting the requisite material submitted the charge sheet against the accused- respondents alongwith Raju @ Ramraj and Kanhaiyalal. On the basis of said charge sheet, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it was numbered as Session Trial No. 45 of 1999 (State Vs. Kanhaiyalal and 2 Others) and Session Trial No. 232 of 1999 (State Vs. Smt. Gyan Devi). After framing of the charges, they were read out to the accused respondents, who abjured the charges did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

11. During the course of the trial, prosecution has produced as many as two witnesses of fact being P.W.-1, Raghuveer Singh and P.W.-2, Sukhrani, who are the brother and mother of the deceased. Five other prosecution witnesses were produced as formal witnesses. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in their testimony clearly stated that the deceased- Rani @ Kalapana was married to Raju @ Ramraj on 15.04.1998. However, after the said marriage her in-laws started demanding dowry and because of non-fulfillment of which they used to torture her, maltreated her and subjected her to cruelty and ultimately on 31.10.1998, she was done to death.

12. As per the autopsy report, the victim has suffered three injuries on her person, which appears to have been caused by some sharp edged weapon.

13. Learned counsel for the State- appellant has submitted that though the accused- respondents are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased but were involved in demand of dowry from the deceased and subsequently, she has been done to death at her in-laws place.

14. Learned counsel has next submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and material on record in right perspective and has illegally acquitted the accused- respondents, which order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

15. Per contra, from the perusal of the records, it is evident that the accused- respondents, Udaibhan and Gyan Devi, who are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased used to live separately and had absolutely no concern with the day to day affairs between the husband and wife. They have been illegally dragged in the criminal Court just because of being the relative of the husband of the deceased. From the perusal of post-mortem report also it is evident that the victim died on account of receiving sharp edged weapon injury, which are alleged to have been caused by one weapon Khukri by her husband- Raju @ Ramraj. Further the recovery of a sharp edged weapon from the house of the deceased has been made at the pointing out of Kanhaiyalal, father-in-law of the deceased. No specific role whatsoever has been assigned to the accused-respondents.

16. Learned Trial Court in its judgment and order has clearly recorded a finding that both these accused-respondents used to live separately and had no concern with the incident in question. Both accused-respondents in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also taken the specific plea of separate living in respect of which a copy of ration card, voter list and resident certificate has also been filed by the accused-respondents reiterating the said fact.

17. Learned Trial Court has further recorded a finding that from the entire evidence adduced and from the material on record, it is evident that on the fateful night accused- Raju @ Ramraj, husband of the deceased on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry has killed his wife and the accused-respondents has absolutely no role to play in the said incident. On the basis of said findings the Trial Court has acquitted the two accused- respondents. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence and material on record and are of the view that the finding recorded by the Trial Court qua the accused- respondents, Udaibhan and Gyan Devi is just proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court.

18. The husband of the deceased, Raju @ Ramraj has been convicted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment. Thus, taking the holistic view and keeping in mind the fact that the accused-respondents are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, who are living separately and has no role to play in the said incident, as such, have been rightly acquitted by the Trial Court and the view taken by the Trial Court can not be said to be perverse, illegal or impossible but a possible view in favour of the accused- respondents.

19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any good ground to admit the said appeal. The instant government appeal is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Order Date :- 17.5.2024/SK Srivastava