AJAY PATHAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 19.02.2013 and 23.02.2013 wherein the appellant Ajay Pathak (husband of the victim) stood convicted under Sections 498A/304B of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of 3 years for his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC. For his conviction under Section 304B he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. had been granted to him.

(2.) THE version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of father of the victim namely Rajender Prasad Mishra. He was examined as PW -1. His statement was recorded by the SDM. His version was that his daughter after her marriage was continuously harassed for dowry and in particular for a four wheeler vehicle (car) which the appellant and his family were demanding to which he had expressed inability to fulfill, for which the victim had been penalized and had been killed by the appellant and his family members. Apart from the version of PW -1 statement of the uncles of the victim i.e. PW -2 and PW -3 had also been recorded. The medical evidence which was the post mortem report of the victim (Ex.PW -6/A) proved through Dr.Santosh Kumar (PW -6) evidenced that the victim had died by hanging. She had died in the mid -afternoon in her matrimonial home. Version of the prosecution being that it was for the accused to have explained the circumstances in which she had died but they have failed to do so. It was on the basis of the aforenoted evidence collected by the prosecution that the appellant was convicted and sentenced. This Court notes that the other family members who were charge sheeted i.e. father -in -law, mother -in -law and sister -in -law of the appellant stood acquitted.

(3.) NEEDLESS to state that these arguments have been refuted. Learned counsel for the State submits that the testimony of the father of the victim (PW -1) was cogent and coherent and the version of her uncles who were examined as PW -2 and PW -3 fully corroborated the statement of PW -1 wherein it stands proved that the victim was harassed for dowry i.e. for not bringing a four wheeler vehicle (car) and this was the reason which had led to her untimely and unfortunate death which was in less than 1 1/2 months of her joining her husband in the matrimonial home. The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution. On no count does the impugned judgment call for any interference.