Allowed

Indrajeet v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023CRLA/2384/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal. The court held the prosecution story lacking in truth and evidence regarding torture given the medical opinion of antemortem hanging without other injuries, the appellant's prompt police report, and the belated emergence of dowry allegations.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order of the trial court setting apart the appellant's conviction and sentencing were set aside. The appellant was directed to be released from jail.

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202495

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2384 of 2006 Appellant :- Indrajeet Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 13.03.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court, Court No.20, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 582 of 1997 (State vs. Indrajeet and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 1997, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi, whereby the appellant- Indrajeet and co-accused Devratiaya have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B I.P.C. for 07 years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 498-A I.P.C. for 02 years rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months additional imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The trial court has extended the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. to the accused persons.

¶6

2. Smt. Devratiya preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1369 of 2006 (Smt. Devratiya vs. State of U.P.) against the same judgement & order which her death stands abated vide order dated 14.07.2023.

¶7

3. A typed application dated 09.01.1997 was given by Ram Surat to the Superintendent of Police, (Daoba), District Allahabad stating therein that his daughter Prabhawati Devi was married to Surya Narayan around 08 months back. She was in her matrimonial house. On 07.01.1997 his daughter Prabhawati Devi was done to death by her husband Surya Narayan, father-in-law Indrajeet and Devratiya wife of Indrajeet by pressing her neck and causing injuries on her body. After her death he received an information on which he rushed to her house and found her dead body there which had injuries on it. He has a belief that his daughter has been murdered by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and even persons of village are saying so that the daughter-in-law has been murdered. His daughter after returning from her matrimonial house for the first time had told him that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to beat her and used to say that cycle was not sufficient and there

¶8

¶9

was demand of a scooter, Rs. 20,000/- cash and a coloured T.V. and on non-fulfillment of the same, either she would be thrown out or be murdered. The post-mortem of the dead body be got done. He prays that appropriate directions be issued to the S.H.O., Karari, District Allahabad for lodging a report and taking necessary action. The said application is Exb:Ka-1 to the records.

¶10

4. On the basis of the said application and on the orders passed by superior authority a first information report of the matter was lodged as Case Crime No. 06 of 1997, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station- Karari, District- Allahabad on 12.01.1997 at about 17.30 hours against Surya Narayan the husband, Indrajeet the father-in-law and Devratiya the mother-in-law. The chik first information report is Exb:Ka10 to the records.

¶11

5. The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted on 08.01.1997 upon an information given by Indrajeet Vishwakarma the appellant who is the father-in-law of the deceased. The said inquest report is Exb:Ka-3 to the records.

¶12

6. The postmortem examination report of the deceased was conducted by Dr. A.K. Gupta and Dr. Manoj V. Singh on 09.01.1997 at 4.45 p.m. and the doctor found the following injuries on her body:-

¶13

“(I) A ligature mark present on front x both sides of neck starting from 1” below Lt. Ear, extending upto 1” below Rt ear, shape 11” x 1” situated obliquely downwards. The ligature mark missing on back of neck, the ligature mark being on middle part of neck.”

¶14

The cause of death was opined as follows:-

¶15

“Death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.”

¶16

The said postmortem examination report is Exb:Ka-2 to the records.

¶17

7. The investigation concluded and charge-sheet no. 3 of 1997 dated 10.02.1997 was submitted against Surya Narayan, Indrajeet and Devratiya, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. The said charge-sheet is Exb:Ka-12 to the records.

¶18

8. During investigation the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the incident on 13.01.1997. The same is Exb:Ka-11 to the records.

¶19

9. Vide order dated 17.02.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, charge under Sections 304-B I.P.C. and 498-A I.P.C. was

¶20

¶21

framed against Indrajeet and Devratiya. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶22

10. In so far as Surya Naryan the third accused is concerned, he was declared a juvenile and his file was separated and sent to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. The trial is still pending as per the order-sheet of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 26.09.2023 filed in the present matter.

¶23

11. The matter was then taken up for trial in which Indrajeet the first informant was examined as A.W.-1, Ram Kailash Mishra was examined as A.W.-2, Ram Surat was examined as P.W.-3, Shakuntara was examined as P.W.-4 and Gyan Chandra was examined as P.W.-5 as the witnesses of fact. Amongst the formal witnesses Trilochan Upadhyay was examined as P.W.-6, Dr. A.K. Gupta was examined as P.W.-7, S.H.O. Raj Kumar Upadhya was examined as P.W.-8, Constable Mahesh Lal Srivastava was examined as P.W.-9, Dr. M. Verma was examined as P.W.-10 and Circle Officer Devendra Nath was examined as P.W.-11.

¶24

12. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. although admitted the marriage of the deceased Prabhawati with accused Surya Narayan to be solemnized around 08 months before but denied the further prosecution case in full. The accused-appellant Indrajeet further stated that Prabhawati and her husband Surya Naryan were residing separately in a different house whereas he along with his wife and small children were living in a different house. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 18.10.2004 he disclosed his age as 50 years.

¶25

13. In defence Radhey Shaym Dubey was produced as D.W.-1.

¶26

14. The trial court after conclusion of trial convicted the accusedappellant and the co-accused as mentioned above. The present appeal has thus been filed before this Court.

¶27

15. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record and the records in the present appeal of the trial court also.

¶28

16. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is the father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Prabhawati Devi. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died which is also suggestive from the postmortem

¶29

¶30

examination report, wherein, the deceased has received a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is argued that the deceased was not found to have received any other bodily injury by the doctors conducting the postmortem examination. It is further argued that the appellant Indrajeet informed the police about the deceased committing suicide in the house. The said information was recorded in the G.D. No. 22 dated 07.01.1997 at 18.15 hours at Police Station Karari, District Allahabad. The said document is Paper No.10(A)/6 of the records before the trial court. It is argued that on the basis of the said information, the inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted after which the body was sent for postmortem examination and then the present first information report was lodged even after 03 days of the postmortem examination of the deceased.

¶31

17. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in so far as the allegation regarding demand of dowry by the appellant and other accused persons is concerned, the same is a totally concocted and an afterthought version. The allegation regarding demand of dowry has seen the light of the day for the first time when the present first information report has been lodged. There is no complaint whatsoever either by the deceased while she was alive or by any person of the house of the informant or even the informant to any authorities prior to lodging of the present first information report regarding any demand of dowry by any accused persons. It is argued that the Investigating Officer has recovered a rope by which the deceased had committed suicide which was found to be having a length of about 9 hands for which a recovery memo Exb:Ka-9 was prepared and looking to the length of the same, the same was sufficient for committing suicide. It is further argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the appellant-accused and two other accused persons in the first information report. It is argued that the conduct of the appellant is aboveboard as immediately after knowing of the incident he informed the police after which police came into action and conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased on the said information of the appellant after which the postmortem examination was conducted. It is argued that the deceased died on 07.01.1997 whereas the first information report has been lodged on 12.01.1997. The informant for the first time made an effort to lodge a report against the appellant and other persons on 09.01.1997 on which date he gave a typed application to the concerned Superintendent of Police and even therein there is no reference of his making any report or making any complaint earlier to the

¶32

¶33

police about the incident. It is argued that inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted on 08.01.1997 wherein five witnesses although suspected of rape being committed on the victim and then her murder being done after which the Magistrate concerned opined that postmortem be conducted subsequent to which postmortem examination was conducted. It is argued that in the postmortem examination report there is no iota of any sexual assault on the victim. It is argued that as such looking to the nature of the case, the conduct of the appellant, the postmortem examination of the deceased, delay in lodging of first information report, it is clear that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appeal be thus allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

¶34

18. Per contra , learned A.G.A. vehemently while opposing the present appeal argued that the appellant is the father-in-law of the deceased. He being the head of the family was under a solemn duty to ensure that things are going on properly in the house. It is argued that the appellant failed in his duty in keeping a watch in the condition of the house due to which the deceased died. It is argued that the appellant is named in the first information report and there are allegations of demand of dowry by him and other persons and even torture and assault upon the deceased due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is argued that there is specific allegation of demand of dowry in the nature of a scooter, Rs. 20,000/cash and a coloured T.V. It is argued that the prosecution has led ample evidence to show the complicity of the appellant in the present matter. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The judgement and order of the trial court is without any irregularity or illegality. The appeal be thus dismissed.

¶35

19. A.W.-1 Indrajeet was produced in the matter who stated about the accused Surya Narayan being a juvenile. Identically A.W.-2 Ram Kailash also stated about the same.

¶36

20. A.W.-1 Indrajeet is father of the accused Surya Narayan.

¶37

21. A.W.-2 Ram Kailash is the head master of a school where accused Surya Narayan has parted education. He states of his date of birth.

¶38

22. P.W.-3 Ram Surat is the first informant and father of the deceased. He states regarding the marriage of his daughter with accused Surya Narayan being solemnized around 08 months back. He further states of demand of dowry of a scooter, Rs. 20,000/- cash and a coloured T.V. by

¶39

¶40

the accused persons and due to non-fulfillment of the same, torture and beating of the deceased by them. He further states of his daughter informing him regarding demand of dowry and her getting beaten by the accused persons due to non-filfillment of the same. He states that accused persons while assaulting his daughter pressed her neck and murdered her and then by tying a rope around her neck after her death made her to lie on the cot. The villagers informed him that his daughter has been murdered. He reached there and found his daughter to be dead. He gave a typed application to the S.P. concerned which is Exb:Ka-1 to the records.

¶41

23. P.W.-4 Smt. Shakuntara is the wife of P.W.-3 Ram Surat and mother of the deceased. She states regarding marriage of the deceased with Surya Narayan, demand of dowry and threats extended by the accused persons to the deceased. She states that the deceased was done to death by pressing her neck. The accused assaulted her and then after her death lay her down on the cot.

¶42

24. P.W.-5 Gyan Chandra Vishwakarma is brother of the deceased. He also states about the marriage of the deceased with co-accused Surya Narayan and regarding demand of dowry by the accused persons. He further states regarding the deceased making a complaint regarding demand of dowry.

¶43

25. P.W.-6 Trilochan Upadhyay is the head Constable who had taken the dead body of the deceased Smt. Prabhawati along with Constable Shailendra Kumar Mishra for postmortem examination on 09.01.1997.

¶44

26. P.W.-7 Dr. A.K. Gupta conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased Smt. Prabhawati Devi. He states about the injury as found by him on the body and states about the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. He proves the postmortem examination report which is Exb:Ka-2 to the records.

¶45

In his cross-examination he states that except for the mark regarding hanging, he did not find any other bodily injury on the deceased. He states of that in such a situation there are more chances of the person committing suicide.

¶46

27. P.W.-8 Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar Upadhya was posted at Police Station Karari who transcribed the inquest report. He proves the same as Exb:Ka-3 to the records. He further proved the chalan nash which is Exb:Ka-4 to the records. Photo nash was proved by him which is Exb:Ka5 to the records. He proves further other documents Exb:Ka-6 to 9.

¶47

¶48

28. P.W.-9 Constable Mahesh Lal Srivastava transcribed the chik first information report of the present matter. He proves the same as Exb:Ka10 to the records.

¶49

29. P.W.-10 Dr. M. Verma was also with Dr. A.K. Gupta P.W.-7 while conducting the postmortem examination. He states about the same as that stated by Dr. A.K. Gupta.

¶50

30. P.W.-11 Circle Officer Devendra Nath is the Investigating Officer. He states of conducting the investigation and then submitting a chargesheet Exb:Ka-12 to the records against the accused persons.

¶51

31. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it transpires that marriage of the deceased Smt. Prabhawati Devi was solemnized with Surya Narayan the son of the accused-appellant Indrajeet around 08 months back. Smt. Prabhawati Devi died on 07.01.1997. The appellant is the father-in-law of the deceased. An information about her death was given by the appellant to the police which was recorded in the G.D. at the concerned police station on the basis of which inquest on her body was conducted. The opinion of the officer conducting inquest was of getting the postmortem examination done for ascertaining the real cause of death. Subsequent to it the postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 09.01.1997. The doctor found a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The doctor did not find any other bodily injury on her person. The appellant on coming to know of death of his daughter-in-law informed the police immediately. Subsequently a typed application dated 09.01.1997 Exb:Ka1 to the records was given to the Superintendent of Police concerned on the basis of which a first information report was lodged on 12.01.1997 after orders by the concerned Superintendent of Police. The allegations in the same are general and omnibus in so far as the appellant, co-accused Devratiya and accused Surya Narayan the husband of the deceased are concerned regarding demand of dowry, torture, harassment and causing death of the deceased. The allegation is that the deceased was strangulated by the accused persons and then a rope was used on her neck and she was made to lie down on the cot in a different condition. The medical opinion does not corroborate with the said story as a ligature mark was found to be antemortem and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The story regarding demand of dowry has surfaced for the first time when the first information report has been lodged.

¶52

¶53

Although there is an allegation that the same was continuing since long but there is nothing on record to show that even before there was any complaint made either by the deceased, the first informant or any of his family members to any authorities whatsoever.

¶54

32. Looking to the nature of injury received, the cause of death as opined by the doctor, the deceased not being found to have received any other bodily injury to show any torture soon before her death, the relationship of the appellant with the deceased as he is the father-in-law of the deceased and also his conduct of immediately informing the police on the basis of which inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased, this Court does not found the prosecution story to be as truthful as it is stated in the typed application given by the informant.

¶55

33. In view of the above, the judgement and order dated 13.03.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court, Court No.20, Allahabad is hereby set-aside.

¶56

34. The appeal is allowed .

¶57

35. Non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused-appellant vide order dated 28.07.2023. As per the office report dated 04.10.2023, a report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi has been received stating therein that the appellant has surrendered on 25.09.2023 and is in jail.

¶58

36. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith from jail unless wanted in any other case.

¶59

37. A copy of this judgement along with the trial court records be sent to the trial court forthwith for communication and necessary action. Order Date :- 6.10.2023 AS Rathore

¶60

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶61

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indrajeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukarram Gada Vs State of U.P.

Dalel Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakeeluddin @ Shakil Don Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Alias Saeed Vs State of U.P.