SHOOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court(The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital) dtd. 26/4/2012, whereby, while affirming the conviction of the appellants under Ss. 304-B and 498- A IPC(Indian Penal Code, 1860), the appeal(Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2010) of the appellants was partly allowed thereby reducing the sentence awarded by the Trial Court(Sessions Judge, Pauri Gharwal) from 10 years to 7 years R.I. under Sec. 304-B IPC and maintaining the sentence of 1 year R.I. under Sec. 498-A IPC.

(2.) The appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased (Neelam), who was daughter of Shanker Singh (PW-1) and Sarojini Devi (PW-2). The deceased was married to appellants' son Jitendra Singh (coaccused) on 1/3/2006. On 30/12/2006, deceased gave birth to a male child. Naming ceremony of the child was performed on 11/1/2007. On 17/1/2007, deceased died at her matrimonial home due to extensive burn injuries. Upon being informed of her death, PW-1 lodged a first information report(FIR)(Ex. Ka-1) on the same day, inter alia, alleging that,- when he along with PW-2 had visited deceased's matrimonial home on 4/1/2007, deceased's father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (i.e., husband's elder brother - not tried) and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife - not tried) had told PW-1 and PW-2 that on the day of naming ceremony of the child they would have to give a motor-cycle and cash of Rs.50,000.00. Besides that, it was alleged that when PW-1 and PW-2 visited deceased's matrimonial home on 11/1/2007, the deceased inquired from PW-1 and PW-2 whether they had brought motorcycle and cash. However, when PW-1 expressed his inability to meet the demand, the deceased told PW-1 that lot of pressure was being put on her and if the demand is not met, she would be killed. With these allegations, and by stating that accused had killed his daughter on account of the demand being not met, PW-1 lodged the FIR, which was registered as case crime No.1 of 2007 at P.S. Langur Walla-2, district Pauri Garhwal, under Ss. 304-B, 498-A IPC and Ss. 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against three accused, namely, Jitendra Singh (husband of the deceased) and the appellants, who were all tried together by the Court of Session, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2007.

(3.) During trial, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. PW-1 (the first informant - father of the deceased); PW-2 (mother of the deceased); and PW-3 (uncle of the deceased) were family members of the deceased who proved the date of marriage and alleged that the deceased was depressed on account of the demand. PW-4 was the doctor who conducted autopsy of the cadaver. He proved that the deceased had suffered extensive ante-mortem burn injuries which resulted in her death. PW-5 is cousin of the deceased who had arrived at the spot along with PW-1 on receipt of information regarding her death. He is also the inquest witness. PW-6 is the Patwari who made GD entry of the FIR and took initial steps of investigation such as preparation of inquest report and dispatch of the cadaver for autopsy. PW-7 completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. PW-7, inter alia, stated that at the time of inquest the body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard.