This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of an appellant for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found no infirmity in the trial court's judgment and upheld the conviction.
Criminal appeal dismissed; appellant not to be taken into custody as he has completed his sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Reserved on 30.10.2017 Delivered on 18.01.2018
Court No. 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7839 of 2010 Appellant :- Kapoor Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P . Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvesh,Ganesh Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No. 481/2009 (State Vs. Kapoor Singh and others) whereby appellant Kapoor Singh was convicted for offence under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P. Act') and sentenced to:-
“(i) Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for further six months, under Section 498A I.P.C.;
(ii) Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for further one year under Section 304B I.P.C.;
(iii) Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for further six months under Section 201 I.P.C. and;
(iv) Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for further three months under Section ¾ D.P. Act.”
All these sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of Smt. Sunita (now deceased) daughter of informant Ram Swaroop Yadav was solemnized on 01.03.2008 with appellant-accused Kapoor Singh son of Shiv Kumar Singh. After her marriage, Kapoor Singh (husband), Shiv Kumar Singh (father-in-law), Smt. Kamlesh Kumari (mother-in-law) and Km. Pooja (Nanad) started demanding motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. Due to demand of
2
dowry, she was treated with cruelty and was harassed by them. On 27.03.2009, informant Ram Swaroop Yadav got information from his relative that his daughter Sunita was killed by her-in-laws on 23.03.2009 and her dead body was thrown in River Ganga. Thereafter false F.I.R. about her abduction has been lodged in this reference of her death. On information of Shri Ram Swaroop Yadave (father of deceased), F.I.R. has been lodged on 28.03.2009 at 5:10 p.m. at Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar under Section 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. & ¾ D.P. Act against aforesaid accused at Case Crime No. 301/2009.
3. After investigation police has submitted charge sheet against accusedappellant Kapoor Singh and his father Shiv Kumar Singh for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 201 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act. Learned Trial court has framed charge against accused person for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B alternative 302/34 I.P.C., 201 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act and explained them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To substantiate charges against accused, prosecution has examined PW-1 Ram Swaroop Yadav (Informant), PW-2 Shri Raghubeer as a witnesses of facts and PW-3 Constable Bhagirath Singh and PW-4 Circle Officer Dharmendra Singh (Investigating Officer) as formal witnesses.
5. Except as above no other evidence was adduced. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused/appellant Kapoor Singh was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') wherein he pleaded his innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated . Accused appellant Kapoor Singh further stated that on 27.08.2009 he had come to Kanpur from Ghaziabad with his wife. Some person including Kuldeep came into car and abducted his wife. Kuldeep is son of sister of his wife's father . Informant has lodged false F.I.R. against appellant and his family members.
6. In defence DW-1 Ram Shankar, DW-2, Bhullu, DW-3 Suresh, DW- Raja Ram and DW-5 Shyam Babu have been examined.
7. Upon detailed consideration of evidence on record, learned trial court found the guilt of accused/appellant Kapoor Singh for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act is proved
3
beyond reasonable doubt and passed the impugned order of conviction.
8. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
9. Heard Sri Ganesh Mani Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
10 . Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although appellant has been released after completing his sentence. But, learned trial court has passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the trial court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. PW-1 Ramswaroop Yadav, PW-2 Shri Raghuveer deposed before the court that the marriage of Smt. Sunita was solemnized on 01.03.2008 with appellant-accused Kapoor Singh. After her marriage appellant started demanding motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. Due to demand of dowry, she was treated with cruelty and harassed.
13. Appellant Kapoor Singh has lodged F.I.R. about abduction of his wife. DW-4 Raja Ram has stated before court that Kuldeep has abducted the wife of Kapoor Singh. Kuldeep was known to appellant Kapoor Singh and witness Rajaram, even though his name was not disclosed in the F.I.R. lodged by appellant Kapoor Singh. This shows that Kapoor Singh has lodged F.I.R. about abduction of his wife only to escape himself from criminal liability.
14. PW-1 Ram Swaroop Yadav and PW-2 Raghubeer have proved the prosecution version, there is no material contradiction in their statements so that their testimony may be discarded.
15. After going through the record of the case and the judgment passed by the learned trial court, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the well reasoned judgment of conviction passed by learned trial court for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. In view of above, the conviction of appellant Kapoor Singh 98A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act is upheld.
4
16. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed .
17. From the perusal of report dated 19.11.2017 of Jail Superintendent, Kanpur Nagar, it reveals that appellant Kapoor Singh has been released on 06.10.2015 after completing his sentence. Therefore he shall not be taken into custody. .
18. Office is6,600.00 directed to send a certified copy of this order to Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar and further directed to remit back the lower court's record to the court concerned.
Order Date :- 18.01.2018 Sharad/( Umesh Chandra Tripathi)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was sustainable on the evidence adduced.
Whether the appellant successfully challenged the infirmity in the trial court's judgment.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Kapoor Singh
State Of U.P
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
