Allowed

Deepak @ Pilla and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023CRLA/5169/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the conviction of two accused persons in a Section 304-B IPC and Dowry cases. The High Court set aside the trial court's findings after finding the prosecution evidence on dowry demand contradictory and vague. The Court accepted the defense version that the deceased committed suicide due to marital discord over relations with a brother-in-law, leading to an acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; sureties and bonds discharged.

Deepak @ Pilla and Another Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160737-DB

¶3

Court No. - 46 A.F.R. Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5169 of 2003 Appellant :- Deepak @ Pilla And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

WITH

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5259 of 2003 Appellant :- Lakhan @ Satya Narain And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶7

As per the office report, appellant No. 2, Ganga Sagar Tiwari in Criminal Appeal No. 5169 of 2003, who has been convicted in Session Trial No. 1453 of 2000, State Vs. Udai Narain and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2000, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar and sentenced to life imprisonment, had died on 04.10.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant also supports such statement. In that view of the matter, Criminal Appeal No. 5169 of 2003 abates as against appellant No. 2-Ganga Sagar Tiwari.

¶8

As per the office report, appellant No. 1-Lakhan @ Satya Narain in Criminal Appeal No. 5259 of 2003, who has been convicted in Session Trial No. 1453 of 2000, State Vs. Udai Narain and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2000, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur

¶9

¶10

Nagar and sentenced to life imprisonment, had died on 03.12.2021. Learned counsel for the appellant also supports such statement. In that view of the matter, Criminal Appeal No. 5259 of 2003 abates as against appellant No. 1-Lakhan @ Satya Narain.

¶11

These two appeals have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court below dated 17.09.2003 in Sessions Trial No. 1453 of 2000, State Vs. Udai Narain and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2000, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar. By the impugned judgment the trial court has convicted and sentenced four accused, namely, Deepak alias Pilla (Devar), Ganga Sagar Tiwari (father-in-law), Lakhan alias Satya Narain (Devar) and Udai Narain @ Kallu (husband).

¶12

The appeals at the instance of Ganga Sagar Tiwari and Lakhan @ Satya Narain have been dismissed as having abated on account of their death. Thus, these two appeals, therefore, survive at the instance of Deepak alias Pilla (Devar) and Udai Narain @ Kallu (husband of the deceased).

¶13

By the impugned judgment, the accused-appellants, Deepak alias Pilla (Devar) and Udai Narain @ Kallu (husband) have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment under Section 304-B I.P.C., three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 498-A I.P.C. and on failure to deposit the fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for three months each; two years simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and on failure to deposit the

¶14

¶15

fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for two months each; and two years simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and on failure to deposit the fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for two months each.

¶16

Informant, who happens to be the father of the deceased, has given a written report on 10th of March, 2000 (Ex.Ka.1), stating that he had married his daughter with Udai Narain @ Kallu on 12.06.1995 as per Hindu traditions after giving adequate dowry as per his capabilities. After marriage the accused demanded dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and a gold chain on account of which the deceased was harassed and tortured. Such facts were disclosed by the deceased when she came to her house. The informant requested the accused not to harass his daughter since he has no means to arrange such dowry. A complaint was also given to the Incharge S.H.O., Civil Lines on 17.08.1998. On 07.03.2000 the in-laws of the deceased informed the first informant that his daughter is unwell and is hospitalized in K.P. Ganj Hospital. On receiving such information he came to the hospital along with his wife and found his daughter dead. Apprehension has been expressed that the deceased was done to death by the accused by administering some poison on account of dowry. Based on such written report a first information report came to be lodged as Case Crime No. 150 of 2000, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The deceased was hospitalized at 09:10 a.m. on 07.03.2000 by the husband of the deceased. The deceased ultimately died at 04:55 p.m. on 07.03.2000. Inquest, however, was conducted on 09.03.2000 at 12:30 in the afternoon. The inquest report records that information with regard to the death

¶17

¶18

of the deceased was received on 07.03.2000 at 06:05 p.m. Father of the deceased, Hari Shankar and brother of the deceased were witnesses of inquest. In order to ascertain the cause of death the inquest witnesses opined that postmortem be conducted. Body of the deceased was sealed and sent along with the police papers for postmortem which was also conducted on 09.03.2000 at 02:30 p.m. In the postmortem report the deceased is found to be a 24 years old lady. Cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was preserved. No injuries, however, have been found on the body of the deceased. The viscera report dated 03.08.2000 has been brought on record, as per which Baygon insecticide was found in the viscera and, therefore, cause of death is determined as poisoning. Statements of witnesses were recorded, whereafter charge sheet came to be submitted against the four accused on 08.07.2000. The Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions, where it got registered as Session Trial No. 1453 of 2000.

¶19

Charges were framed by the court of Sessions on 06.01.2001 against the four accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused denied the charges and demanded trial.

¶20

At the stage of trial the prosecution has adduced following documentary evidence:

¶21

(i) F.I.R. dated 10.03.2000 (Ex. Ka.-4), (ii) Written Report dated 10.03.2000 (Ex. Ka.-1), (iii) Postmortem Report dated 09.03.2000 (Ex. Ka.-3), (iv) Inquest Report dated 09.03.2000 (Ex. Ka.-2), (v) Chargesheet dated 08.07.2000 (Ex. Ka.-10) and (vi) Site Plan with Index dated 14.03.2000 (Ex. Ka.-11).

¶22

¶23

In addition to above, oral testimonies have also been brought on record by the family members of the deceased.

¶24

P.W.1 happens to be the father of the deceased has been examined and in his examination-in-chief he has supported the prosecution case with regard to the marriage having been solemnized on 12.06.1995, as also claim of demand of dowry from the deceased. It is also alleged that the deceased was harassed since desired items were not given to the accused persons. P.W.1 has proved the inquest and asserted that the last rites were performed by him. He has also admitted that information with regard to the illness of his daughter was received from the in-laws of the deceased. In his crossexamination, P.W.1 has admitted that marriage was solemnized without any dowry item given to the in-laws, the deceased happily went to her in-laws' house, however, father-in-law of the deceased demanded gold chain as it was required to have been given during marriage and one of the ceremonies. He has also admitted that there was no complaint made by the deceased against her in-laws. In his further cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that demand of gold chain was made after an year of marriage and apart from it no other demand was made. Allegations, however, of ill treatment are made against the father-in-law. The deceased has left behind a two and half year old daughter who is living with her father and grand father. This witness has denied the suggestion that the deceased has illicit relations with her brother-in-law (Jeeja) at whose place she previously lived for a quite sometime at Shuklaganj and it was on account of such dispute that the deceased actually committed suicide by consuming poison. P.W.1 has referred an incident of 1998 when the dispute between the deceased and her

¶25

¶26

husband (Udai Narain @ Kallu) was resolved at Chakeri Police Station.

¶27

Mother of the deceased, Smt. Manorama, has appeared as P.W.2. In her examination-in-chief she has alleged that marriage was solemnized 5-6 years back in which dowry items were given and her younger daughter had also accompanied the deceased to her in-laws place. The younger daughter of P.W.2 remained in in-laws house of the deceased for about one and half months. The younger daughter complained about the bad habits of father-in-law, who would often make lured remarks against the deceased. In her cross-examination, P.W.2 has reiterated the demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and a gold chain. P.W.2 has further asserted during cross-examination that the marriage of deceased was arranged by Sunil Chandra Bajpayee, who happened to be the elder son in-law and was residing at Shuklaganj. She has stated that there was no dowry given at the time of marriage and that the deceased had made no grievance/ complaint with regard to the dowry. P.W.2 has also referred to some incident which took place two years after the marriage in which a report was lodged at Police Station Chakeri, where a compromise was arrived at. This witness has denied the suggestion that in-laws of the deceased objected to visits of deceased to Shuklaganj or that the deceased regularly visits Shuklaganj against the wishes of her in-laws. This witness has admitted that the in-laws of the deceased had objected to her visits to Shuklaganj and it was in that context that the dispute occurred and was resolved at Police Station Chakeri. The statement of P.W.2 in that regard is extracted hereinafter:

¶28

;g lgh gS fd izkph ds llqjky okyks us izkph dks 'kqDyk xat tkus ls euk fd;k FkkA bldk le>kSrk izkph dh 'kknh ds nks lky ckn gqvk Fkk pdsjh

¶29

¶30

Fkkus es gqvk Fkk le>kSrs ds ckn izkphZ 'kqDyk xat ugh tkrh Fkh izkph ds ifr gh 'kqDyk xat ysdj tkrs FksA esjs lkeus izkph vius ifr ds lkFk 'kqDyk xat dHkh ugh xbZA

¶31

Younger sister of the deceased, Smt. Priti @ Binti has appeared as P.W.3, who has made allegations against the fatherin-law of the deceased. This witness has also referred to the involvement of brother-in-law of the deceased, who lived at Shuklaganj and was in the affairs with the deceased.

¶32

P.W.4 is Dr. P. V. S. Chauhan, who conducted postmortem and has proved the postmortem report. P.W.5 is a formal witness, who is an employee of the police department and has proved the police papers. P.W.6 is also a formal witness, who has proved the inquest proceedings.

¶33

P.W.7 is the brother of the deceased and has made allegations with regard to the demand of dowry by the in-laws of the deceased. In his cross-examination he has admitted that marriage of the deceased was got solemnized by his brother-inlaw residing at Shuklaganj and has admitted that the deceased often used to visit at Shuklaganj. This witness has also received information about the death of the deceased from his brother-inlaw at Shuklaganj. Although a previous complaint is alleged to have been made but details in respect thereof has not been produced.

¶34

P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who has proved the F.S.L. report, as per which the viscera of the deceased contained Baygon insecticide. He has also explained various steps which have been taken during the course of investigation.

¶35

¶36

On the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution the statement of accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused have denied their involvement and have asserted that they have been falsely implicated. A specific case has been set up of illicit relations between the deceased and her brother-in-law who lived at Shuklaganj, on account of which she allegedly committed suicide. It has also been alleged by the accused, Deepak alias Pilla that on objecting to the relations of deceased with her brother-in-law she committed suicide.

¶37

A defence evidence has been adduced on behalf of appellants as a testimony of D.W.1-Shiv Kumar, who has alleged that no dowry was given at the time of marriage. This defence witness is a neighbour and claims to know the family members of the accused for the last 15 years. He has alleged that the deceased had consumed poison and after facts came to have been notice of the family members the deceased was rushed to the hospital by her in-laws. Same statement has been made by Samar Singh, who has appeared as D.W.2.

¶38

The trial court on the basis of evidence led in the matter has come to conclusion that the charges levelled against the accused are proved inasmuch as the marriage has been performed within seven years seven years of the date of death which occurred in unnatural circumstances and that there was a demand of dowry. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced as per above.

¶39

Shri Manish Tandon appearing for the appellants submits that it is a case of suicide by the deceased on account of an objection raised by her in-laws to her relations with her brotherin-law.

¶40

¶41

Learned counsel further submits that, in fact, no dowry was ever demanded nor was paid and all such allegations have been levelled, subsequently, as an afterthought merely to implicate the family members, after the deceased committed suicide.

¶42

Learned A.G.A. for the State, on the other hand, contends that the evidence on record may prove the commissioning of offence for which the accused-appellants have been charged and convicted by the Court below and that the appeal itself has no merit.

¶43

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused Udai Narain @ Kallu on 12.06.1995. The deceased has died on 07.03.2000 and, therefore, the death of the deceased is within seven years. It is also admitted from the viscera report that the cause of death is poisoning. Prosecution witnesses have also alleged that there was a demand of dowry on account of which the deceased has been done to death. The defence, however, has come out with a distinct version of the incident, according to which, the deceased used to visit her brother-in-law at Shuklaganj on account of which there were differences between the deceased and her husband, on account of which, she ultimately committed suicide. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is, therefore, primarily required to determine as to whether this is a case of homicidal death or suicide?

¶44

We have perused the postmortem report which clearly goes to show that there existed no injury on the body of the deceased, when the postmortem was conducted. The evidence on

¶45

¶46

record further goes to show that the deceased was taken to the hospital at about 09:10 a.m. on 7th March, 2000 by the husband of the deceased. This is clearly reflected from the treatment card which has been duly proved by the I.O., i.e., P.W.-8. The prosecution witnesses have clearly admitted that the information of illness of deceased was given to her father and other family members on 7th March itself and they also arrived at the hospital on the same evening. It appears that the family members of deceased were at the hospital while the deceased was receiving the medical attention, this is clearly reflected from the statement of P.W.-7, who happens to be the brother of the deceased. Similar statement has been made by P.W.-1 also. These facts taken cumulatively gives an indication that the husband of the deceased as well as her in-laws took due care in taking her to the hospital and also informed the family members of the deceased about the incident. It is also admitted that family members of the deceased were present till the parents of the deceased arrived at the hospital. It is thereafter that the body of the deceased was retained by the parents who later lodged the report.

¶47

So far as the demand of dowry by the father-in-law and husband is concerned, the allegation made by prosecution witnesses is contradictory and vague. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who are the parents of the deceased, at one stage, have alleged demand of dowry from them but in the same statement have also stated that the marriage was solemnized without any dowry and that the deceased was happily living with her in-laws. The demand of gold chain is attributed to the father-in-law of the deceased and such demand is alleged to have been made a year after the marriage. So far as, father-in-law is concerned, he has

¶48

¶49

already died. Most of the allegations have been levelled by the other prosecution witnesses against father-in-law of the deceased and since he has already died, we are not required to examine such allegations in any further detail. So far as the demand of dowry by husband and the brother-in-law is concerned, the allegation is absolutely vague and contradictory. No specific date, time or place for such demand of dowry from the husband is attributed to husband or brother-in-law. We are, therefore, not impressed by the evidence on record with regard to demand of dowry by the husband and brother-in-law. So far as brotherin-law Deepak alias Pilla is concerned, none of the witnesses have ever referred to his name for any specific allegation of demand of dowry by him.

¶50

We have also examined the records and we find that the role of brother-in-law of deceased figures prominently right from the stage of the marriage of the deceased. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that the marriage was arranged by the brother-in-law of deceased who lived at Shuklaganj. It is also admitted that the deceased had stayed for several years in the house of her brother-in-law at Shuklaganj. It appears that there was an issue with regard to frequent visit of deceased to Shuklaganj at the house of her brother-in-law. Mother of the deceased has admitted that frequent visits of deceased to Shuklaganj was the cause of marital discord, in respect of which, a complaint was made at police station Chakeri and a compromise was worked out as per which the deceased was not allowed to go to Shuklaganj alone and, whenever, she visits her brother-in-law, she would be accompanied by her husband. The mother of deceased has also admitted that in-laws of the deceased did not like the act of deceased’s visiting her brother-

¶51

¶52

in-law frequently to Shuklaganj. This fact is more or less admitted to all the prosecution witnesses. The specific defence pleaded by the accused is that the deceased had relations with her brother-in-law and as her in-laws objected her frequent visit to the brother-in-law, she committed suicide in a fit of anger. Defence witnesses have also supported such claim by stating that the marriage, otherwise, was solemnized between the parties without any demand of dowry.

¶53

We have carefully examined the two versions which have surfaced on record before us and in view of the admission made by the prosecution witnesses, we are inclined to accept the defence version that there was a discord in the marital life of the deceased on account of the role played by her brother-in-law residing at Shuklaganj. It is also admitted that the discord went to the extent of lodging of a police complaint and it was only after a compromise worked out at the police station when the issue ultimately was resolved. The defence version that it was on account of such objection of the in-laws in the visits of deceased to the house of her brother-in-law that she committed suicide has been probabilized on the basis of evidence led by the defence. Even otherwise, we find that there are no specific allegations of physical harassment or torture by the in-laws of the deceased, which may have caused her death. The fact that there are no injury marks on the body of the deceased, supports such view of ours. The fact that poison has been found in the viscera report, therefore, clearly supports the defence version as per which the deceased committed suicide.

¶54

Trial Court while convicting and sentencing the accused, has not carefully examined the evidence on record and that

¶55

¶56

testimony of mother of deceased acknowledging the objection of in-laws in frequent visits to Shuklaganj has been overlooked. The fact that there were no previous complaints and no marks of physical injury on the deceased have also been worked out. The trial Court, therefore, fell in error in accepting the prosecution case without subjecting the testimony of witnesses of a careful analysis. In that view of the matter, we set aside the finding of the Court below, as per which, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶57

Consequently, these appeals succeed and are allowed . Judgment and order dated 17.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 1453 of 2000, State Vs. Udai Narain and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2000, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges of offence. Since the appellants, Deepak alias Pilla and Udai Narain @ Kallu have already been released on bail, as such, their sureties and bonds shall stand discharged subject to compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

¶58

(Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)

¶59

Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Mustaqeem./Sandeep

¶60

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak @ Pilla and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Pilla and Another 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

State of Up Vs Salim s/o Khalik and 2 Others

Jugal Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

State of Up Vs Vaidya Vikram Dutt Shastri s/o Kaluram Tyagi

Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Gappu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Lakhan @ Satya Narain and Another Vs State of U.P.