Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Delivered on 18/07/2018) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 30/09/2003 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhind in Sessions Trial No.260/2002, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 of IPC as well as Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of ten years, rigorous imprisonment of two years, rigorous imprisonment of two years and rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence respectively, with default imprisonment.

(8) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that it is incorrect to state that the deceased was married to the appellant No.1 on 09/05/1995. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was married to the appellant No.1 on 09/05/1997 and the death of the deceased occurred other than in normal circumstance within seven years of her marriage. It is further submitted that the appellants have failed to prove that the appellants No.2 & 3 were residing at Itarasi and not at Phoop, District Bhind. The defence taken by the appellants that the deceased was not keeping well after the birth of her child, is incorrect. No medical prescription has been filed in order to show that she was being treated for any ailment. It is the case of the appellants themselves that the deceased was residing with them and she died and accordingly, the appellants had submerged the dead body of the deceased in the river. Although the appellants have claimed that there is a custom in their society to immerse the dead body in the river, but the custom has not been proved. Even otherwise, the fact that the appellants did not inform the parents of the deceased about the death of the deceased clearly indicates their guilty consciousness. Further, the deceased herself had informed her brother on 05/07/2002 that he should take the deceased from her matrimonial house otherwise she would be killed and accordingly, when on 08/07/2002, the brother of the deceased went to the matrimonial house of the deceased, he found that the house was locked and nobody was there. If the deceased had died natural death and there was no default on the part of the appellants, then there was no reason for them to abscond after the incident. It is further submitted that the incriminating circumstance of disposing of the dead body of the deceased by submerging the same in the river without informing even the parents of the deceased or the neighbourers of the locality, clearly indicates that the death of the deceased had occurred other than in normal circumstance.

attending the marriage also could not be justified by this witness because he even could not tell the name of person of whose daughter he had performed the marriage. Thus, it is clear that the appellants have failed to prove that the Lagun was written on 09/05/1995.

It is next contended by the counsel for the appellants that Arun Singh Bhadauria is the son of the deceased and in the school admission register, the date of birth of Arun Singh Bhadauria has been mentioned as 12/10/1996. To prove the school admission register Ex.D3, the appellants have examined Kamlesh Singh (DW2). In cross-examination, Kamlesh Singh (DW) has admitted that there is an overwriting on the date of birth of the son of the deceased. This witness has also admitted that there is some variation in the ink. The appellants have also filed one mark-sheet of Arun Singh Bhadauria as Ex.D2, in which the date of birth of the son of the deceased has been mentioned as 12/09/1996. This mark sheet has also been issued/proved by Kamlesh Singh (DW2). Kamlesh Singh (DW2) has admitted that he was earlier working as a teacher in the school and now he is working on the post of clerk. The school is situated in the city of Bhind whereas the appellants were residents of village Phoop, District Bhind which is far away from the city of Bhind. If the date of birth of Arun Singh Bhadauria is accepted as 12/10/1996, then it is clear that he was admitted in KG Class on 07/07/1999 that means he was less than three years of age. Kamlesh Singh (DW2) has admitted that as per the rules, the age of child for admission in KG Class should not be less than three and half years and if the date of birth of Arun Singh Bhadauria is accepted as 12/10/1996, then it would be clear that on 07/07/1999, the child of the deceased was less than three years of age and, therefore, he could not have been given the admission in the school, as per admission made by Kamlesh Singh (DW2).

(23) It is next contended by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants No.2 and 3 were residing at Itarasi and not at Phoop and they had no occasion to make a demand of dowry and to harass the deceased because of non-fulfillment of their demand. Although the appellants have claimed that the appellants No.2 and 3 were residing at Itarasi but they have not filed any document to substantiate their submissions. The appellant No.2 has taken a stand in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC that he is working as a vendor at Railway Station Itarasi but the appellants have not examined the employer of the appellant No.2 to prove that the appellant No.2 was working as a vendor at Railway Station Itarasi. No document has been filed to substantiate his defence. It appears that since the co-accused Smt. Rama was residing at Itarasi, therefore, a false defence has been taken by the appellants that they are residing at Itarasi and not in village Phoop, District Bhind. Thus, it is held that the appellants have failed to prove that the appellants No.2 and 3 were not residing at village Phoop, District Bhind but they were residing at Itarasi, District Hoshangbad.