PHOOL KESRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Appeal, the complainant questions a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 24.2.2011 in SC No.355/2009.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the accused Uttam Kumar was in love with Sujata i.e. the deceased. THEy both got married against the wishes of their parents. THE parents relented subsequently to perform a proper marriage ceremony. According to the prosecution allegations, the appellant used to harass the deceased on account of dowry demands and even physically beat her. On 4.4.2009, within four and a half month of their marriage, the deceased was found hanging in the matrimonial house. THE information in this regard was received by the concerned Police Station i.e. PS Mehrauli. THE concerned police officers reached the spot and found the body of the deceased hanging in the drawing room by the ceiling fan. THE deceased had used a chunni. It is alleged that the police called the Crime Team, which searched for clues and incriminating materials, which were duly collected. THE body was taken down and sent to the mortuary. THE deceased's parents were informed. THE concerned SDM recorded their statements in which they alleged that they were compelled to marry off their daughter to the accused. According to their statements recorded in the course of the investigation, the deceased used to complain about tension between her and the accused with regard to the gifts, which according to the accused were inadequate from her side. THE parents also alleged that on the day of the incident, they had received a call from the deceased that she would be returning to her parental home. However, in the evening, they received a call from the police mentioning that she had committed suicide by hanging. THE deceased's parents further alleged that the accused had been married earlier and had a son but he had not disclosed it to the deceased at the time of their marriage.

(3.) IT was argued that the Trial Court's findings that Sujata probably could not face the harsh reality due to the existence of accused's son from a prior marriage, had compelled her to commit suicide is a mere surmise. IT was further argued that the impugned judgment concluded erroneously that the deceased knew before her marriage to the accused that he was a widower and had a child from the first marriage. These were extraneous to the record. On the other hand, PW-2 had produced relevant record of the marriage of the deceased with the accused. A look at this document clearly showed that the accused i.e., the husband had solemnly affirmed that he was unmarried. This prima facie in the absence of any evidence to the contrary proved that Sujata was never made aware about the accused having been married earlier. Therefore the conclusion of the trial court that Sujata could not face the harsh existence of the previous marriage and the reality that there was an offspring out of it had no basis on the record.