Rana Beni Madhav Singh vs State Of U.P
2025 Latest Caselaw 2510 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rana Beni Madhav Singh vs State Of U.P on 24 July, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


		               Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42551
 
Court No. - 13
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2052 of 2003
 
Appellant :- Rana Beni Madhav Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- R.B.S.Rathore, Saurabh Srivastava, Shishir Pradhan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant impeaching the judgment and order dated 21.10.2003, passed by the Session Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No.327 of 2001 (State Vs. Rana Beni Madhav Singh and others) and connected with S.T. No.26 of 2002 (State Vs. Kumari Benu Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.94/2000, lodged at Police Station - Dalmau, District - Raebareli, thereby convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo Seven Years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo one year's additional imprisonment.

3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is to the effect that informant is Chatrapati Singh S/o late Badri Narayan Singh, R/o Pingari, Police Station-Kunda, District - Kunda, and the marriage of the daughter of the informant namely Sangeeta with the accused appellant Rana Beni Madhav Singh S/o Lakhan Singh, R/o Village -Kandharpur, Police Station - Dalmau, District - Raebareli was solemnized on 20.06.1999. Rs.51000/- cash, 05 Tola gold jewelry, 01 Kg. silver jewelry and other household articles viz. Black and White T.V., Double Bed, Sofa Set were given in dowry. After the marriage the accused-appellant, Lakhan Singh (father-in-law), Gayatri Singh (mother-in-law), Beenu Singh (sister-in-law), Ranjeet Singh (grand father-in-law) and Prabha Devi (grand mother-in-law) were demanding Hero Honda motorcycle, Thompson Color T.V. and fridge. On account of the non fulfillment of the said demand, the victim was ill treated and tortured by the accused-appellant and other persons of his family. On 20.06.2000 the deceased died in the matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage. On receiving the information, the informant and others rushed to the matrimonial home of the deceased. The informant reached the matrimonial home of the deceased at about 5.00 P.M. It is to be noted that the information of the incident was given by the accused-appellant to the informant.

4. The written report dated 01.07.2000 (Ext. Ka-1) of the incident was given by the informant at the Police Station-Dalmau, District-Raebareli implicating the accused-appellant and other family members. Based upon the written report, the F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-9) was registered as Case Crime No.0094 of 2000, at 6.05 P.M. against accused-appellant Rana Beni Madhav Singh (husband), Lakhan Singh (father-in-law), Ranjeet Singh (grand father-in-law), Gayatri Singh (mother-in-law), Beenu Singh (sister-in-law), and Prabha Devi (grand mother-in-law) for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The accused-appellant also gave written report at Police Station-Dalmau on 28.06.2000 indicating therein that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself with ceiling fan. Entry of the same was made in the G.D. at G.D. entry No.20 dated 28.06.2000 (Ext. Kha-1) at 12.15 hours.

6. After the aforesaid, the inquest report (Ext.Ka-3) was prepared and the body was sent for post mortem. Post mortem on the body of the deceased was carried out by Dr. S.C. Srivastava and Dr. B.B.L. Rathore in the presence of Dr. J.P. Yadav, C.M.O. at District Hospital, Raebareli. The post mortem report indicates following injuries :-

(1) Linear abraison 2 x 0.1cm on left side cheek. 3 am from angle of mouth left side.

(2). Linear abraison 2.5 cm x .1 cm on left side cheek 2.5 C.M. lateral to injury No. 1.

(3). Linear abraison 1.5 cm x 0.1 cm on front of neck. 2 cm below the chin in mid line.

(4) Contusion 10 x 13 cm on front of lower neck and upper chest (from below thyroid cartilate upto sternum manubrid on cutting echmosis present.

5). Interrupted ligature marks two in number measuring 8.5 x 1.5 cm on front of neck from right side anterior to the angle of mandible extending obliquickly down to opposite side of neck upto the level of sternum muscle on left side 5 C.M. below the mandible. Another one measuring 8 x 1 c.m. from mid line of neck going to left side of neck downward at the level of 9 cm below left ear lobul situated 1.5 cm apart from the first ligature mark. On cutting reddish and echymised margines present.

6. Contusion 2 x 1 cm on outer side of right arm 2 cm above the elbow joint.

7. Contusion 5x2 cm on right side iliac bone 6 cm from ant. sup. iliac spine.

7. Accused-appellant and others were apprehended and sent to jail. It is to be noted that the accused-appellant was released on bail in terms of order dated 12.04.2004, which reads as under :-

"Heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G.A.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that accused-appellant is in jail for the last four years and now he has been convicted under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned AGA, however, contended that during the trial accused was not on bail.

Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, let the accused-appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, concerned.

So far as realisation of fine is concerned, the same is not stayed. However, accused-applicant is allowed one month's time from today to deposit the same in the lower court. If the same is not deposited, benefit of this order will not be available to the appellant."

8. From the above released order as also record it appears that the accused-appellant remained in jail for a period of about 04 years.

9. Upon completion of investigation, which includes preparation of site-plan (Ext.Ka-13) and statements of the witnesses of the prosecution, the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") submitted charge sheet (Ext.Ka-14) dated 05.09.2000 against the accused-appellant, Lakhan Singh (father-in-law), Ranjeet Singh (grand father-in-law) and Gayatri Singh (mother-in-law). The supplementary charge sheet (Ext. Ka-12) was also submitted by the I.O. Mohd.Tariq Khan (PW-7) against the accused Beenu Singh (sister-in-law) and Smt. Prabhu Dei (grand mother-in-law).

10. Following committal of the case to the court of Sessions, two cases were registered i.e. S.T. No.327 of 2001 (State Vs. Rana Beni Madhav Singh and others) and S.T. No.26 of 2002 (State Vs. Kumari Beenu Singh and another). On 22.01.2002, the trial court framed the charges against the accused persons under Section 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused persons denied the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

11. Thereafter, to establish its case before the trial court, the prosecution examined total 08 witnesses. The statement of the witnesses was recorded in the leading S.T. No.327 of 2001. The witnesses of the fact, namely, Chatrapati Singh (PW-1), Narendra Pratap Singh (PW-2) and Himanshu Pratap Singh (PW-3) proved the relevant documents and the prosecution case, as indicated in the F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-9). Dr. S.C. Srivastava (PW-4) proved the post mortem report (Ext.Ka-2). The other formal witnesses namely Tehsildar Prem Chandra (PW-5), Constable Dev Narayan (PW-6), Second I.O. Mohd. Tarik Khan (PW-7) and First I.O. Awadhesh Sharan (PW-8) proved the documentary evidence placed by the I.O. along with the charge sheet.

12. Upon completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the questions were put to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied the prosecution case.

13. The learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and upon due consideration of the evidence available on record including the statements which includes statements of the witnesses of fact came to the conclusion that offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the accused/appellant and, therefore, convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid under Sections 306 I.P.C. and acquitted the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Other accused were acquitted.

14. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant - Rana Beni Madhav Singh has preferred the present appeal.

15. It is stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paranagouda and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369, based upon the dying declaration, altered the conviction for the offence under Section 304-B to Section 306 IPC and while imposing the sentence took lenient view and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone, i.e. 1 year 27 days, with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of offence. It is also stated that in this case the marriage of the appellant with deceased was solemnized about three years ago from the date of incident and the deceased committed suicide by setting her ablaze. Para(s) 37 and 38 of the judgment, being relevant, are extracted hereinunder:

"37. In the aforesaid background and the evidence on record as already noticed by us hereinabove, it can be safely noted that High Court ought to have examined as to whether accused could have been convicted for an offence for which no charge was framed and not undertaking of such an exercise would result in failure of justice? Thus, it will have to be seen from the facts unfolded in the present case as to whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which they are being tried and whether the main facts sought to be established against them were explained to them clearly and whether they got a fair chance to defend themselves. If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessarily this Court will have to proceed further and examine as to whether accused can be convicted for the offence not charged and if the answer is in the negative it would result in acquittal of the accused for said offence. In the instant case the dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused person on account of which she committed suicide. It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by self-immolation. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though charge was not framed. The accused (appellant Nos. 1 and 2) are now aged about 66 and 61 years respectively. They have already spent one year, one month and 27 days in prison. They do not have any past history of criminal record. Hence, a lenient view has to be taken while imposing the sentence.

38. For the reasons afore-stated the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court in SC No.35 of 2011 dated 14.09.2012 as affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.2847 of 2012 by judgment dated 20.07.2022 is hereby modified. The appellants are 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 and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default to pay the fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of the offence."

16. Based upon the judgment passed in the case of Paranagouda (supra) as also the period lapsed i.e. about 25 years from the date of incident and also the period of incarceration, i.e. about 04 years, it is further stated that, upholding the conviction, on sentence lenient view may be taken in this case of the appellant.

17. Learned A.G.A. supported the judgment under appeal but could not dispute the aforesaid.

18. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

19. In the instant case from the facts of the case including the statement of the witnesses of fact it appears that the deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused and on account of the harassment and mental torture, which she could not resist/withstand, the deceased committed suicide and in this view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality in the judgment of conviction under appeal. Accordingly, conviction of accused-appellant is upheld for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

20. In view of above as also taking note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paranagouda (Supra), I am of the opinion that on the sentence of the accused-appellant, who has already spent about 04 years in prison and has no criminal history, a lenient view has to be taken.

21. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order dated 21.10.2003, passed by the Session Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No.327 of 2001 (State Vs. Rana Beni Madhav Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.94/2000, lodged at Police Station - Dalmau, District - Raebareli is upheld but the sentence of the accused/appellant is hereby modified. The accused/appellant- Rana Beni Madhav Singh is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone.

22. The amount of fine Rs.5000/-, if not already deposited, shall be deposited within three months from today. In case of default of payment of fine, he would undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

23. The accused/appellant is on bail and accordingly, his personal bond is canceled and sureties are discharged.

24. Let a copy of this judgment and trial court record be sent forthwith to the trial court concerned for compliance.

Order Date :- 24.7.2025

ML/-