MAHENDRA MODI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and revision are directed against Judgment dated 12.2. 2003 holding the- appellant guilty under section 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, The Act") and order dated 28.2.2003 sentencing him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, in the case FIR No. 33/1991, p. S. Nawab Ganj, Kanpur, U. P. The case was registered under sections 304b/498a IPC and section 4 of the Act. The appellant was acquitted of other charges, including, the alternate charge under sections 302/34 IPC. It may be noted here that the Supreme court on the complainant's petition transferred the case from the State of U. P. for trial in Delhi. By the impugned judgment, other five accused persons, (except appellant) were acquitted.

(2.) Facts in brief are as follows: On 14.2.1991, Jai Nandan Lai (brother of the deceased). r/o. Gridih, Bihar (hereafter, "the. complainant") lodged a written report with the police at Kanpur, stating that on 7.2.1988 mahendra Modi (appellant) was married to his sister - Anju (deceased) , and sufficient dowry was given as per their capacity, at the time of marriage. On 8.2.1988 at the time of departure of "barat" appellant told them that at least one maruti car should have been given in the dowry. In reply, complainant's family told him that they were passing through financial hardship and they would try to do the needful sometimes in future. On 9.2.1988 complainant also got married; appellant attended the same and repeated demand, saying that he was cheated and if he had married in some other family, he could get even two cars. On hearing this complainant's family was hurt, but they could not do anything and hoped that their daughter anju, by her love and affection would win appellant's heart and he would give up the demand The days passed by; Anju informed them, that although her husband was holding a good post, he is greedy and eager to extract money and that he taunts and tortures her. In the meantime, they came to know that Anju was on the family way, then they thought that this perhaps may bring some change in the appellant. However, she informed them that her husband's attitude was not proper; and anything can happen during this period and desired to deliver the child at her parents house. The complainant along with his younger brother and maternal uncle Inderjeet, went to Kanpur and brought her to Gridih, but appellant declined to accompany them, despite requests, stating it was of no use to accompany her, as his demand was not being met. She delivered a male child on 1.8.1989, in a private nursing home at Gridih. Appellant did not enquire about her health and well being; and in october, 1990, she alongwith the child was sent back to her matrimonial home, alongwith her father-in-law and mother-in-law. She joined her husband who was posted in Kanpur. Even thereafter, there was no change in appellant's attitude and he continued to insist on his demand for car and money to buy a piece of land.

(3.) On 4.2.1991 complainant received information that his sister-Anju was killed. On reaching Kanpur, they came to know that she was poisoned by the appellant and his family members for non-fulfillment of their demand; one Dr. Hareram was running a private nursing home (Priya Nursing Home) at Nawasth Mohalla, where the appellant used to reside earlier in the rented accommodation; he had shifted to Rawatpur Officers Colony, 2-3 months earlier, where he was residing at the time of incident. This colony was at a distance of 8-10 kilometres from his previous residence. It was alleged that on 3.2.91 appellant and his parents had a dinner at the house of the said doctor and she was poisoned there. On the night intervening 3rd and 4th february, 1991, complainant's sister Anju fell sick and she was brought to said nursing home, with the history of vomiting and loose motions. The doctor put her on oxygen and glucose drip. She did not respond to the treatment and her condition deteriorated. She was advised to be taken to the government hospital but she died on the way. It was further alleged that blood mixed froth was seen coming out from her noshils and her nails as well as the lips had turned blue. There was no mark of injury on her body, which showed that she was poisoned and mercilessly killed. He further stated that she was not provided immediate medical treatment, with a view to incapacitate her to make any statement. They washed off the vomitus material and claimed that she had died because of the brain hemorrhage. It was also alleged that on 7.2.1991, appellant left the minor child at Gridih, on the pretext that he is unable to keep him and that he' will be a hindrance in his second marriage. On this complaint, the above noted case was registered. After completion of investigation, police filed the challan against eight persons (minor child named in the FJR was not challaned) : namely appellant (husband) , laxman Modi (father-in-law) , Smt. Ambika modi, (mother-in-law) , Ashok Modi, Dasrath modi, Raj Kishore Modi (brothers-in-law) , Smt sushila Modi and Meena Modi (sisters-in-law) of the deceased (Anju Modi). Smt. Ambika Modi (mother-in-law) and Ashok Modi (brother-in-law) , died and trial against them abated. On the basis of material collected during investigations, charges were framed; the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined fourteen witnesses.