Allahabad High Court
Mahesh vs State Of U.P. on 13 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74989
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 530 of 2009
Appellant :- Mahesh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Neeraj Sahu,A.N. Misra,S.K. Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") against the judgment/order dated 25.02.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 597 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 257 of 2006, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Hariyawan, District- Hardoi, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 498-A for two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months' additional imprisonment, under Section 304-B IPC for eight years imprisonment and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act for one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's additional imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
(i) The marriage between accused-appellant/Mahesh and deceased/Vidhyawati was solemnized about 2 years and 8 months back from the date of incident i.e. 10.12.2005. On 10.12.2005, the deceased committed suicide, which is apparent from the injuries sustained and opinion of Autopsy Surgeon. The injuries sustained by deceased, as indicated in the judgment under appeal dated 25.02.2009, read as under:-
"e`R;q iwoZ vk;h pksVsa%&
Qkalh dk fu'kku ¼fyxspj ekdZ½ xnZu ij Åij dh rjQ frjNk ekSTkwn Fkk ;g 25 lseh0 X 2 lseh-0 dk Fkk] cka;s dku ds uhps 6 lseh- dk fu'kku ekStwn FkkA ;g Qkalh ds xkaB dh txg gksrh gSA fu'kku l[r x< (ii) In relation to the incident, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was preferred on 10.12.2005 making allegations against accused-appellant/Mahesh (husband) and co-accused/Ramautar & Smt. Mayavati, father-in-law & mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased.
(iii) In compliance of the order passed on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate, an FIR was lodged and thereafter, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer (in short "IO") against accused-appellant/Mahesh and co-accused Ramautar and Smt. Mayavati.
(iv) The Magistrate concerned thereafter took cognizance and committe the matter to the court of sessions.
(v) Before the court of sessions, accused-appellant/Mahesh and co-accused/Ramautar were tried in Sessions Trial No. 597 of 2006. Co-accused/Smt. Mayavati was tried in Sessions Trial No. 598 of 2006. It would be apt to indicate here that vide judgment, under appeal, dated 25.02.2009, both the above indicated trials were decided.
(vi) Before the trial court, charges were framed against accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Upon denial of charges, the appellant and co-accused were put to trail.
(vii) To establish its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
"¼1½ ckcwjke ¼eqdnek oknh½ ih0MCyw0&1
¼2½ Jhiky ih0MCyw0&2
¼3½ gsM dkUl0 lq'khy dqekj ¼ys[kd ,Q0vkbZ0vkj½ ih0MCyw0&3
¼4½ Mk0 gseUr dqekj ¼iksLVekVZedrkZ½ ih0MCyw0&4
¼5½ lh0vks0 losZ'k dqekj feJ ¼foospd½ ih0MCyw0&5
¼6½ uk;c rglhynkj jkevkSrkj oekZ ¼iapukekdrkZ½ ih0MCyw0&6"
(viii) The aforesaid witnesses of prosecution proved the following documentary evidence:-
"¼1½ Nk;kizfr izkFkZuki= vUrxZr /kkjk 156 ¼3½ n0iz0la0 izn'kZ d&1
¼2½ fpd ,Q0vkbZ0vkj izn'kZ d&2
¼3½ dkcZu dkih th0Mh0 izn'kZ d&3
¼4½ iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ d&4
¼5½ uD'kk utjh izn'kZ d&5
¼6½ vkjksi i= izn'kZ d&6
¼7½ vkjksi i= izn'kZ d&7
¼8½ QnZ ysus dCtk jLlh IykfLVd izn'kZ d&8
¼9½ iapk;rukek izn'kZ d&9
¼10½ uewuk eksgj izn'kZ d&10
¼11½ pkyku yk'k izn'kZ d&11
¼12½ QksVks yk'k izn'kZ d&12
¼13½ fpV~Bh lh-,e-vks- izn'kZ d&13
¼14½ fpV~Bh vkj-vkbZ- izn'kZ d&14"
(ix) After completion of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court, after explaining the entire evidence and circumstances, in which appellants denied prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.
(x) The defence also examined the following witnesses:-
"Z¼1½ Jherh uh'kw iRuh ohjiky Mh+0 MCy0w&1
¼2½ egsUnziky Mh0+ MCyw0&2
¼3½ jktuckcw Mh+0 MCyw0&3"
(xi) Informant Baburam (PW-1) before the trial court specifically stated that demand of motorcycle and a buffalo was made by the appellant and no demand was made by co-accused Ramautar and Smt. Mayavati, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased.
(xii) The trial court after considering the evidence on record including the statements of informant-Baburam (PW-1) and Shripal (PW-2) and also the statements of witnesses of defence came to the conclusion that co-accused Ramautar and Smt. Mayavati, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased were living separately and demand of dowry was made only by the accused-appellant and not by co-accused Ramautar and Smt. Mayavati. As such, the trial court upon due consideration of the evidence on record including the post-mortem report convicted the appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act and acquitted co-accused Ramautar and Smt. Mayavati. The relevant portion of the judgment under appeal dated 25.02.2009 is extracted hereunder:-
"ijUrq ih0MCyw0&1 ckcwjke o ih0MCyw0&2 Jhiky o cpko i+{k ds lk{khx.k ds lk{; ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vfHkq;Drx.k jkevkSrkj o mldh iRuh ek;korh vius iq= egs'k ds fookg ds 6 eghus ckn ls gh vyx jg jgs gS vr% muds }kjk ngst esa eksVjlkbfdy o HkSal dh ekax fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha FkkA
tgka rd iape o vfUre rRo dk iz'u gS rks ih0MCyw0&1 ckcwjke oknh eqdnek us izfrijh{kk i`"B 8 ij dgk gS fd nqckjk fonk gksus ij fo|korh yxHkx 6 ekg rd vfHk;qDr egs'k ds ;gka jghA 6 ekg ckn tc lk{kh o xkao ds vU; yksx fonk djkus x;s rks vfHk;qDr egs'k us fonk ugha dh rFkk eksVjlkbfdy o HkSal dh ekax dh FkhA iapk;rukek izn'kZ d&9 esa vafdr uke iapku esa jktucckw Mh-MCyw-&3 jke vkSrkj] jkelkxj] esok] fot;izdk'k loZ fuoklhx.k xzke Hknsmjk Fkkuk gfj;koka ds uke vafdr gSA ;fn oknh eqdnek o mlds xkao ds vU; yksx iapk;rukek rd ekSds ij igqap x;s Fks rks muesa ls fdlh u fdlh O;fDr dks iap fu;qDr fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ih0MCyw0&1 ckcwjke o ih0MCyw0&2 Jhiky us vius dFkuksa esa Li"V #i ls dgk gS fd tc og xzke Hknsmjk igqps rks mUgs vfHk;qDrx.k ds ?kj ij rkyk iM+k feyk mlds i'pkr [kkst djrs djrs og phj?kj gjnksbZ igqps tgka 4 cts 'kke yk'k feyus ds i'pkr yk'k vfHk;qDrx.k dks ns nh xbZ ftUgksus fo|korh ¼e`rdk½ dk vfUre laLdkj fd;kA mijksDrkuqlkj cpko i{k dk ;g cpko xyr lkfcr gks tkrk gS fd iapk;rukek ds le; o fdz;k deZ ds le; fo|korh ds ifjokjhtu mifLFkr FksA Vh0 v#Ur is#u tks'kh cuke jkT; ¼2006½ 9 ,l-lh0lh0 467 esa ekuuh; loksZPPk U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfuf.kZr fd;k gS fd e`R;q ls Bhd iwoZ ngst gsrq izrkM+uk ds fy, dksbZ LVsªV tSdsV QkewZYkk ugha gS cfYd ;g izR;sd dsl dh ifjfLFkfr ij fuHkZj djrk gSA izLrqr ekeys esa izkjEHk esa ysdj var rd vfHk;qDRk egs'k }kjk fo}korh ,oa mlds ifjtuksa ls ngst esa eksVjlkbfdy o HkSaLk dh ekax dh tkrh jgh gS vkSj mls blds fy, izrkfM+r ,oa rax fd;k tkrk jgk FkkA blfy;s ngst e`R;q dk vijk/k xfBr gksus ds fy, iape rRo Hkh LFkkfir gSA
ih0MCyw0&3 gsM dkUl0 lq'khy dqekj vkSipkfjd lk{kh gS ftlus fpd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ d&2 o dk;eh th0Mh0 izn'kZ d&3 dks izekf.kr fd;k gSA
ih0MCyw0&5 losZ'k dqekj feJ lh0vks0 us f}rh;d lk{kh ds #i esa uD'kk ?kVukLFky izn'kZ d&5] vkjksi i= izn'kZ d&6 o izn'kZ d&7 o QnZ ysus dCtk jLLkh IykfLVd izn'kZ d&8 dks lkfcr fd;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa bl Lkk{kh ls ,slk dksbZ rF; ugha mxyok;k tk ldk gS tks fd vfHk;kstu vfHkdFkk ij dksbZ dqizHkko Mkyrk gksA
ih0MCyw0&6 uk;c rglhynkj jkekSrkj oekZ us iapk;rukek izn'kZ d&9] uewuk eksgj izn'kZ d&10] pkyku yk'k izn'kZ d&11] QksVks yk'k izn'kZ d&12] fpV~Bh lh-,e-vks- izn'kZ d&13] fpV~Bh vkj-vkbZ- izn'kZ d&14 dks lkfcr fd;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa bl lk{kh us dgk gS fd og ?kVukLFky ij Ms<+ cts eksVjlkbfdy ls igqapk FkkA lk{kh ds vuqlkj mls ;g /;ku ugha gS fd ekSds ij e`rdk ds ifjokj ds yksx Fks vFkok ughaA ekSds ij jkeckcw iz/kku mifLFkr FksA bl lk{kh ds vuqlkj mlus 2-30 cts iapk;rukek dh dk;Zokgh lekIr dj nh FkhA cpko i{k }kjk e`rdk fo|korh ds ekrk firk o ek;ds ls fdlh vU; O;fDr dh mifLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa bl Lkk{kh ls dksbZ iz'u ugha fd;k x;k gSA
mijksDr lk{; dh leh{kk ls ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr egs'k }kjk e`rdk fo|korh o mlds ifjtuksa ls fookg ds mijkUr ls gh yxkrkj ngst esa eksVjlkbfdy o HkSal dh ekax dh tkrh jgh Fkh o bl fufeRr fo|korh ¼e`rdk½ dks izrkfM+r ,oa rax fd;k tkrk jgk FkkA fu"d"kZr% vfHk;qDRk egs'k ds fo#) /kkjk 498,] 304ch Hkk-n-la- ,oa /kkjk 4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k dk vkjksi lkfcr gSA vfHk;qDrx.k jke vkSrkj o Jherh ek;korh ds fo#) /kkjk 498,] 304ch Hkk-n-la- ,oa /kkjk 4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k dk vkjksi lkfcr ugha gS rFkk os mijksDr dfFkr vijk/k ds vkjksiksa ls nks"keqDr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
vfHk;qDr egs'k U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gS mls /kkjk 498,] 304ch Hkk-n-la- ,oa /kkjk 4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k ds vkjksi esa nks"kfl) djrs gq, vfHkj{kk esa fy;k tkrk gSA mlds ca/ku i= o izfrHkwwi= fujLr dj izfrHkwvksa dks mUeksfpr fd;k tkrk gSA ltk ds iz'u ij vfHk;qDRk dks lquk tk;sxkA
g0 viBuh;
(jktHkku flag½
vij l= U;k;k/kh'k]
fnukad% 25-2-09 U;k;ky; la[;k&7 gjnksbZ
n.M ds iz'u ij vfHk;qDr egs'k o mlds lq;ksX; vf/koDrk dks lquk x;kA vfHk;qDr egs'k dh vksj ls dgk x;k gS fd mlls cM+k ,d HkkbZ gS tks fodykax gS rFkk vfHk;qDr vius o`) ekrk&firk ds thfodksiktZu gsrq ,d ek= dekÅ lnL; gSA vr% n.M ds iz'u ij mnkj n`f"Vdks.k viuk;s tkus dh ;kpuk dh xbZA fo}ku lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk ¼QkStnkjh½ us vfHk;qDr dks vf/kdre n.M fn;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
vfHk;qDr egs'k dh vkfFkZd o lkekftd fLFkfr rFkk vijk/k dh izd`fr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, eSa fuEu n.Mkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk lehphu ikrk gwaA
vkns'k
vfHk;qDr egs'k dks /kkjk 498, Hkk-n-la- esa 2 o"kZ ¼nks o"kZ½ dk dkjkokl ,oa 2000@� vFkZn.M o /kkjk 304ch Hkk-n-la- ds vijk/k esa 8 o"kZ dk dkjkokl rFkk /kkjk 4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k esa 1 o"kZ ¼,d o"kZ½ dk dkjkokl rFkk 1000@#0 vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA vFkZn.M vnk u fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa vfHkq;DRk egs'k dks /kkjk 498 , Hkk0n0la0 esa 2 ekg dk vfrfjDr dkjkokl o /kkjk 4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e esa 1 ekg dk vfrfjDRk dkjkokl Hkksxuk gksxkA lHkh ltk,a ,d lkFk pysaxhA vfHk;qDrx.k jkevkSrkj o Jherh ek;korh dks /kkjk 498,] 304ch Hkk-n-l rFkk /kkjk 4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k ds vkjksiksa ls nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA muds ca/ki= o izfrHkwi= fujLRk dj izfrHkwvksa dks nkf;Ro ls mUeksfpr fd;k tkrk gSA
bl fu.kZ; o vkns'k dh ,d izfr lEcfU/kr l= ijh{k.k 598@06 jkT; cuke ek;korh ij j[kh tk;sA"
4. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present appeal has been filed before this Court challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.02.2009, under appeal.
5. Impeaching the judgment, under appeal, dated 25.02.2009, learned counsel for the appellant says that it is a case of Section 306 IPC read with Section 113-A of Indian of Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "Act of 1872"), even if it is presumed that the findings pertaining to demand of dowry are correct.
6. It is further stated that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court took note of the injuries sustained and altered the conviction from the offence as indicated under Section 304-B to Section 306 IPC. Reference in this regard has been made on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the judgment passed in the case of Paranagouda and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369.
7. Learned AGA on the contrary submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly taking note of the statement of PW-1, who specifically indicated the name of appellant, no interference is required in the present appeal by this Court.
8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
9. In the aforesaid background and the evidence on record, as already noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that accused-appellant is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though charge was not framed. The accused-appellant has already spent two years and six months in prison. He does not have any past history of criminal record. Hence, a lenient view has to be taken while imposing the sentence.
10. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order of conviction dated 25.02.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 597 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 257 of 2006, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Hariyawan, District- Hardoi is hereby modified. The appellant/Mahesh is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and Section 498A IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to pay the fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of the offence.
11. The appellant is stated to be on bail, his personal bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged.
12. Let a copy of this judgment and record be sent forthwith to the trial court concerned for compliance.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024/Arun/-
