Allahabad High Court
Mahesh vs State Of U.P. on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 438 of 2013 Appellant :- Mahesh Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sajid Raza Rizvi,Manish Bajpai,Siddharth Lal Vaish Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J.
(Per Ramesh Sinha, J. for the Bench) (1) The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2013 in S.T. no.670 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime no.680 of 2009, Police Station Phool Behar, District Lakhimpur Kheri, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three years of simple imprisonment, convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year of simple imprisonment and convicted for offence under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and all the above mentioned sentences were to run concurrently.
(2) The prosecution case in nutshell is that an FIR was lodged by informant- Awdhesh Kumar- PW 2 at the concerned Police Station alleging that his sister, namely, Gudda aged about 25 years at that time, was married to the appellant Mahesh s/o Gobardhan, resident of village- Khostawa, Police Station Phool Behar, District Lakhimpur Kheri six years ago, i.e., in the year 2003 in accordance with Hindu rites and traditions. After one and a half years of marriage Mahesh frequently harassed her and demanded an additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. She had informed about this demand to her family members twice or thrice but on the conciliation by the relatives Mahesh kept quiet. After few days his sister had called him on phone and told that Mahesh was demanding Rs.10,000/- out of remaining dowry amount from her immediately and was also threatening for her life and had beaten her with kicks and fists, on which the informant called Mahesh on phone and tried to pacify him by saying that he will come in three to four days and settle the matter himself. On 31.05.2009 he was informed that his sister Gudda has been done to death by Mahesh by mercilessly beating her on account of non-fulfillment of additional amount of dowry as demanded by Mahesh. The informant went to Khostawa and found dead body of her sister lying in her room.
(3) On the basis of the said written complaint (Ex- Ka 1) being made by PW 2, Awdhesh Kumar at the Police Station Phool Behar, District Lakhimpur Kheri about the incident dated 31.05.2009, investigation was carried out and an FIR (Ex- Ka 9) was lodged against the accused/appellant- Mahesh as Case Crime no.680 of 2009 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Phool Behar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
(4) After investigation charge sheet (Ex- Ka 12) was submitted against accused/appellant- Mahesh before the Competent Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 10.08.2009 by the learned Magistrate.
(5) On 14.05.2010 the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri framed charges against the appellant- Mahesh for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B (alternate charge under Section 302 I.P.C) I.P.C. and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act respectively.
(6) The accused denied the charges and claimed his trial.
(7) The prosecution in support of its case has examined PW 1- Rajkaran, PW 2- Awdhesh, PW 3- Rakesh Kumar Maurya, PW 4- Dr. H.B. Singh, PW 5-Chhotelal Mishra and PW 6- Basantlal.
(8) The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution evidence. The accused-appellant Mahesh has taken a plea that the witnesses have falsely deposed against him and the charge sheet which was submitted against him is a wrong one and the case which has been alleged against him is on account of enmity and that he is innocent.
(9) PW 1- Rajkaran in his deposition before the trial Court has submitted that Gudda Devi is his sister. He got her married in 2003 to accused- Mahesh according to Hindu rites and traditions and dowry was also given. She died in her matrimonial home.
(10) After two-three years of marriage Mahesh started demanding Rs.50,000/- as an additional amount of dowry for which he used to harass and beat her and troubled her for food and clothing. Mahesh also demanded Rs.50,000/- from her and her family members. He along with his family members even tried to pacify Mahesh but he did not pay any heed to their request. One month prior to incident, Mahesh immediately demanded Rs.10,000/- from her sister about which she told him but he refused her because his younger brother was about to get married. Ten days prior to the incident she came to her parental house for the last time when his younger brother's marriage was being solemnized and told her family about how Mahesh was harassing and beating her for not fulfilling his demand of additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and he has also demanded Rs.10,000/- immediately. It was her last visit there and thereafter she never met them. Whenever she used to come to his house she used to complain about the torture and harassment done by Mahesh on her to meet the demand of Rs.50,000/-. He further stated that the information about the death of his sister was given by a person from Mahesh's village on phone. He along with his brother, mother and other people went to her sister's in-laws' house and saw her dead body in her room. On her body there were marks of injuries. His brother Awdhesh Kumar- PW 2 had gone to police station and reported this incident and thereafter, police arrived and sealed the dead body of her sister and sent it for Post Mortem.
(11) He further stated that Mahesh had murdered his sister for non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-. The witness supported the prosecution case and held appellant/accused Mahesh responsible for the death of his sister.
(12) On cross examination PW 1 deposed that seeing the prosperity of Mahesh he married his sister to him on 05.05.2002 and ''Bidai' took place on 06.05.2002. After her marriage she used to complain about Mahesh but he took no action. On the date of incident at around 3 p.m. he was informed through phone that his sister has died. He along with his brother, mother and other people went to his sister's house and found her dead body in her room. There was blood where she was found. He remained the whole night at the place of occurrence. The police arrived at 10 p.m. and had conducted the Panchayatnama on the body of the deceased at night and had sent the same to Lakhimpur Kheri for its Post Mortem and all of them went in the night to Lakhimpur Kheri along with the dead body. The Police arrested Mahesh on that night only. He stated that he was unaware of the fact that Mahesh's grandmother's home was in Parehara where there was ''Mundan' ceremony. He in his cross examination had admitted that Mahesh did not demand any dowry from him but he used to demand the same from his sister. He further submitted that the last rites of the deceased was performed in his presence by him and not by her family members (in-laws).
(13) PW 2- Awdhesh Kumar, who is the informant in the case, is the elder brother of PW 1 and deceased. He was examined by the trial Court and he has supported the prosecution case as averred in the FIR as well as statement given by PW 1 and for the sake of brevity the same is not reiterated. He in his deposition has stated that he has received the phone call from his sister and she told him that Mahesh is demanding Rs.10,000/- immediately and had also assaulted her with kicks and fists and threatening for dire consequences of her life, but on receiving the said information he could not go to meet his sister and thereafter he received the information about her death. His sister had lastly come to her house 10 days before the marriage of his younger brother and there she told her family members about the demand of Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry being made by Mahesh and how he harassed her for non-fulfillment of the same. He has further stated in his evidence that the information about the death of her sister was given by one Om Prakash Awasthi, on which he had gone to her in-laws' house. Her sister was lying dead in the room and he saw the marks and injuries on her body. He has informed the police station Phool Behar about the incident and the report was written by Om Prakash Awasthi. He dictated the incident to him and he wrote what was dictated to him and thereafter, he put his signature on the written report (Ex- Ka 1). He had submitted the said report to the Police Station and he was given a copy of the FIR by the Constable Clerk of the said Police Station. The Panchayatnama, which was conducted on the dead body of the deceased, was performed in the presence of Naib Tehsildar and Police personnel. The dead body was sealed in his presence and he has signed the inquest report and has proved the same as Ex- Ka 2.
(14) In his cross examination PW 2 stated that Mahesh had started harassing his sister after one and a half years of marriage. The name of his sister is Gudda Devi alias Shanti Devi. Her marriage was solemnized on 05.05.2002, which was Sunday and the ''Bidai' ceremony was on 06.05.2002, which was Monday. His sister died on 30.05.2009 and he received the information on 31.05.2009 at 3 p.m. in afternoon on his mobile. He further admitted the fact that the information was given by Mahesh on his phone on which he reached the house of in-law's house of his sister. Mahesh reached the place of occurrence at 6.45 p.m. He stated that after the inquest the dead body of his sister was sent for Post Mortem to Lakhimpur Kheri. Mahesh along with his mother had accompanied the dead body to police station, after this where Mahesh went away he had no idea. He further deposed that last rites were performed in Lakhimpur Kheri by him. The place where the dead body was found blood was also there. He further deposed that the Investigating Officer had not taken his statement at any point of time and when the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence he showed him where the dead body was and blood near it. The Investigating Officer took out the dead body to the courtyard and after last rites were performed, neither did he return to the place of occurrence nor any police officials met or interrogated him.
(15) PW 3, Rakesh Kumar Maurya, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Palia, District Lakhimpur Kheri deposed that he was posted as Naib Tehsildar in District Lakhimpur Kheri since June, 2009. On 01.06.2009 he conducted the Panchayatnama of the deceased and he visited the house of the deceased, i.e., place of occurrence, under the orders of the District Magistrate, Sadar, Lakhimpur Kheri. When he reached the house of Mahesh to conduct Panchayatnama, SI Ram Nath Singh, SO Pramod Kumar Singh, Constable Shivdeen Verma along with other villagers including in laws of the deceased were already present there. Panchayatnama and related papers were prepared by SI Ram Nath Singh on his dictation. The dead body of the deceased was examined and several injuries were found on it and thereafter the dead body was sealed and sent for Post Mortem. He has proved the inquest report of the deceased as Ex- Ka 2, which was prepared by SI Ram Nath Singh and it bears signature of PW 3. PW 3 also proved the Photo Lash, Sample Seal, letter to CMO, letter to R.I., Chalan Lash, which were prepared by SI Ram Nath Singh and it bears the signature of PW 3 as Ex- Ka 3 and Ka 7.
(16) PW 4- Dr. H.B. Singh in his deposition before the trial Court has stated that on 01.06.2009 he was posted as Consultant Chest Physician, Balrampur Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri and at 3.30 p.m. he performed autopsy of the dead body of Smt. Gudda, which was sent in by Naib Tehsildar in a sealed condition and identified by Constable Shivdeen Verma. The dead body was sealed and was opened in his presence. During the time of autopsy Dr. S.P. Singh was present along with him. The following Ante Mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased which are enumerated as follows:-
1. Contusion 6 cm X 3 cm over right side head 2 cm above right ear on dissection tissues brain ecchymosed and extracted and subdural haematoma present over brain.
2. Contusion 10 cm X 6 cm over right shoulder and upper arm.
3. Constusion 15 cm X 6 cm over left forearm.
4. L.W. 5 cm X 1 cm X bone deep over front of right index, middle and ring fingers just above base of fingers.
5. Contusion (Multiple) in an area of 60 cm X 20 cm over front of right thigh and leg.
6. Contusions in an area of 50 cm X 20 cm over front of left thigh.
7. Contusions in an area of 40 cm X 30 cm over back of chest and abdomen.
(17) In the opinion of Dr. H.B. Singh, the cause of death is due to coma as a result of ante mortem head injuries. He further stated that the injuries received by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death of the deceased occurred on 31.05.2009 at about 10 a.m. and the injuries which have been caused to the deceased was possible by a hard blunt object. The witness stated in his cross examination that the death of the deceased could have occurred 36 hours prior to Post Mortem. He has proved the Post Mortem report as Ex- Ka 8.
(18) PW 5- Constable Chhotelal Mishra has deposed before the trial Court that on 31.05.2009 he was posted as Constable Clerk, Police Station Mahrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar and on that day informant- Awdhesh Kumar came to the police station and gave written complaint on the basis of which he had prepared Chik FIR no.121 of 2009 (Case Crime no.680 of 2009) and registered the same for offences under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act in his handwriting and signature and proved the same as Ex- Ka 9 and stated that the said FIR was lodged in pursuance of the written report submitted by the Awdhesh Kumar- PW 2, which is Ex- Ka 1.
(19) He has further deposed that he endorsed the fact of lodging of FIR in GD on 31.05.2009 at 20.10 hours in GD no.33 in his handwriting and further also prepared the carbon copy of the GD and proved the same as Ex-9 and Ex-10.
(20) PW 6- Basantlal in his examination before the trial Court has stated that he was posted as the Circle Officer in June, 2009 in Dhaurehra and he was entrusted with the investigation of the case on 01.06.2009 and he had started the investigation on the very same day. He prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex- Ka 11 and recorded the statement of the Panchayatnama witnesses, namely, Om Prakash, Rampal, Ram Kishore and also recorded statement of Constable Shivdeen Verma, Naib Tehsildar Rakesh Kumar Maurya and Dr. H.B. Singh. On 02.06.2009 Station House Officer, Pramod Kumar Singh arrested Mahesh on his directions and recorded his statement.
(21) On 03.06.2009 he submitted the charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet no. 124 against accused- Mahesh in Case Crime no.680 of 2009 under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Phool Behar, District Lakhimpur Kheri and he signed and proved the same as Ex- Ka 12. He in his cross examination has stated that at the place of occurrence he recorded statement of accused- Mahesh, the informant of the case, witnesses- Subhash, Rajkaran, Smt. Jaydevi, witnesses of Panchayatnama, namely, Omprakash, Rampal, Ram Kishor, neighbours of Mahesh, namely, Sehej Ram, Ramavtar, Ramakant and Alijan.
(22) He further deposed that family members of accused- Mahesh, were not present at his house and he did not know whether the in-laws of the deceased accompanied her to Lakhimpur Kheri Hospital or not. He further deposed that on 02.06.2009 accused- Mahesh was arrested by Station House Officer but was not aware of the fact that the deceased was done to death in an incident of dacoity or not.
(23) The defense has given a suggestion to the witnesses that the murder of the deceased was committed in the incident of dacoity but there was no evidence produced by the defense in this regard.
(24) The trial Court after examining the prosecution and defense evidence acquitted the appellant- Mahesh for offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., but convicted and sentenced him under Section 498-A, 302 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act by the impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred the instant Appeal.
(25) Heard Shri Manish Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State of U.P. and perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court along-with lower Court record.
(26) It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased, who was the wife of the appellant, was done to death in a dacoity which took place in his absence as he had gone with his mother to his maternal grandmother's house. He further argued that as soon as he came to know about the incident he informed the concerned Police Station which arrived and conducted the Panchayatnama /inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased. He argued that if the appellant had been responsible for the offence in question for the murder of his wife, then he would not have been present at his house and would have fled away. He further argued that so far as the demand of dowry for which it is alleged that the deceased was murdered, is absolutely a false one as is evident from the statement of PW 1, who is the brother of the deceased, namely, Raj Karan, who admitted the fact that the financial position of the appellant was good as he had landed property and in the said circumstances to demand dowry from the deceased and her family members is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless and further on the other hand, the financial position of the family members of the deceased was not such that any demand made by the appellant could be met by PW 2. The appellant informed about the death of his wife to PW 2 which has been admitted by him in his statement.
(27) The appellant along with his mother accompanied the dead body of the deceased to Lakhimpur Kheri where the Post Mortem of the deceased was conducted. Thus, he submitted that the trial Court committed error in convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment while acquitting him under Section 304-B I.P.C. as it did not find a case of dowry death.
(28) Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that statement of PW 1 and PW 2 cannot be relied upon as they are interested and partisan witnesses, being the real brothers of the deceased.
(29) Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument has further relied upon judgment of Apex Court in Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab; (1996) 2 SCC 350 and argued that merely the recovery of the dead body from the house of the appellant is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. It is not conclusive in nature and is not compatible only with the guilt of the appellant and wholly incompatible with his innocence. This circumstance can only create suspicion about the complicity of the appellant but suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof.
(30) Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that he deceased was found dead in her matrimonial home where the appellant was also residing and she died an unnatural death and from the Post Mortem report of the deceased it is apparent that she received as many as seven injuries on her person which included contusion and lacerated wounds and the cause of death as per Post Mortem Report was coma as result of ante-mortem head injuries. It was further submitted that the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was done to death in a dacoity which was committed in his house, has no legs to stand as the appellant has not taken any defense in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the trial Court. Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by the appellant to show that any articles, etc. were looted by the dacoits while committing the murder of the deceased.
(31) So far as the conduct shown by the appellant that he informed the informant about the incident on his phone and further he remained present throughout at the time of conducting the inquest proceedings of the deceased on the dead body of the deceased and accompanied with his mother for Lakhimpur Kheri where the post mortem of the deceased was conducted, cannot be a ground for acquittal as the appellant has failed to explain the death of his wife who died in an unnatural circumstances in his house and at the time of incident the appellant was also found to be at the place of occurrence.
(32) We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court as well as lower Court record.
(33) It is an admitted fact that the deceased was the wife of the appellant and she was found dead in an unnatural circumstances in her matrimonial home where the appellant was also living with her.
(34) There has been a consistent demand of dowry from the deceased by the appellant of Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and for which she was being cruelly tortured and harassed by the appellant. On being assaulted by Mahesh she made a complaint about this to her family members time and again and also when she visited her parental home in her younger brother's marriage she told her family members about the harassment being caused to her by her husband for non-fulfillment of the demand of additional dowry.
(35) The information about the death of the deceased was received by PW 2 on his mobile phone from a person residing in Mahesh's village and also by Mahesh, on which he went to the appellant's house and found the deceased in a dead condition in her room. PW 2 along with his family members and other persons of the village saw several injuries on the dead body of the deceased which was also detected by witnesses when the inquest report/ Panchayatnama of the dead body of deceased was conducted in the presence of PW 3, Rakesh Kumar Maurya, Naib Tehsildar by the police.
(36) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused- Mahesh is not at all responsible for the death of his wife as the injuries which were found on the dead body of the deceased, the same were received by her in a dacoity in his house when the appellant was not even present there, i.e., at the time and place of occurrence, as he had gone to his maternal grandmother's house along with his mother.
(37) The aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the accused-appellant is not acceptable at all as the appellant has not taken any such defense in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nor has he produced any oral or documentary evidence recording the same to prove that the deceased was murdered in a dacoity committed in his house. Moreover, no articles, etc. were found looted by the dacoits/ murderers from the house of the appellant.
(38) So far as the second argument of learned counsel for the appellant that he had informed about the incident to the PW 2 and remained present throughout the inquest proceedings and also accompanied the dead body to Lakhimpur Kheri goes to show that he is innocent, is also of no consequences as the appellant is not being able to discharge his burden in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as it was his duty to explain the death of his wife, who died an unnatural death in his house and his presence there is also proved from the statement of P.W. 2. From the perusal of the ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased, it is apparent that the deceased has received as many as seven injuries on her person on different parts of her body which includes head, chest and abdomen and it cannot be said to be self inflicted injuries and the said injuries could be caused by some hard blunt object.
(39) In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer; 1956 SCR 199, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and held that the section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and it is well nigh impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was said:
"This [Section 101] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not."
(40) The applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act has been lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Kanshi Ram, JT; 2006 (12) SCC 254.
"The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution."
(41) Similarly in case of P. Mani vs. State of Tamil Nadu; 2006 (3) SCC 161 Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:-
"We do not agree with the High Court. In a criminal case, it was for the prosecution to prove the involvement of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It was not a case where both, husband and wife, were seen together inside a room but the prosecution itself has brought out evidences to the effect that the children who had been witnessing television were asked to go out by the deceased and then she bolted the room from inside. As they saw smoke coming out from the room, they rushed towards the same and broke open the door. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, to which reference was made by the High Court in the aforementioned situation, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever."
(42) The cause of death in the opinion of PW 4- Dr. H.B. Singh, who conducted the Post Mortem is that the injuries which were caused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. From the evidence of PW 2 it is also clear that the last rites of the deceased were performed by PW 2 and his family members and not by the appellant. The trial Court has acquitted the appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C. as it found during the course of evidence that the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was solemnized beyond seven years ago and it was not a case of dowry death but on the alternate charge framed by the trial Court it came to the conclusion from the evidence on record that the deceased was cruelly treated, harassed and tortured by the appellant for additional dowry and for non-fulfillment of the said demand, she was mercilessly beaten to death by the appellant. Hence, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment along with offence under section 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act.
(43) The case law which has been cited by learned counsel for the appellant in Harbans Lal (supra) is support of his argument is different from the facts and circumstances of the case, as in the said case the accused has categorically taken a defense in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that on account of strained relations with his wife, he used to sleep at the shop and not in the house and that after he learnt about the death of his wife at about 10/11 a.m. on 17.10.1981, he sent information to the relations of his wife.
(44) In the present case the appellant has not taken any such defense in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he has only stated that the charge sheet which has been submitted against him was wrong one and the witnesses have falsely deposed against him and implicated him on account of enmity and he is innocent. Thus, argument which has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the deceased was done to death in the house of the appellant when the dacoity was committed, there appears to be no basis and has no legs to stand.
(45) Moreover, a casual suggestion about the said fact has been given to PW 2 by the defense regarding the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and that some unknown miscreants have entered in the house of the appellant and the deceased has identified them and she was killed which has also been categorically denied by PW 2- Awdhesh Kumar, who is the informant of the case and brother of the deceased.
(46) Thus, the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant referred above is of no help to him as it is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(47) In view of the foregoing discussions we do not find any illegality or infirmity in recording the finding of the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused- Mahesh for the offences under section 498-A, 302 and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is hereby upheld.
(48) The Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(49) The appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court.
(50) Office is directed to transmit the lower Court Record along with certified copy of this order to the Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and follow up action, if any required.
(Rajeev Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 23.02.2021 Arnima