ANUPAM DIXIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judg ­ment and order dated 23.03.2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Sessions Trial no. 481 of 1995, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellant Anupam Dixit under section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC), and sentenced him to im ­prisonment for life.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ­ties, and perused the lower court record.

(3.) THE Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary papers, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., ap ­pears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. (Earlier Khatima was part of District Nainital, now part of district Udham Singh Nagar). On 23.05.1997, Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under sec ­tion 304B, and 498 AIPC, against accused Anupam Dixit, who pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.I Balbeer Singh (who proved the inquest report, and recovery of two letters), P.W.2 Kailash Narayan Mishra (father of the deceased), P.W.3 Gyanwati Mishra (mother of the deceased), P.W. 4 Abhijit Mukherjee (hand writing expert), P.W.5 Vipin Kumar Sharma (son of the landlord of the accused), P.W.6 Harikant Tripathi (Sub-Divisional Magistrate), P.W.7 Dr. Ravi Bhushan (who conducted post ­mortem examination), P.W.8 S.K. Pathak, Dy. Superintendent of Police (who partly investigated the crime), P.W.9 Ashok Kumar Tamta, Superintendent of Police (who started investigation), P.W. 10 Dy. Superintendent of Police Surendra Pal Singh (who started investigation), P.W. 11 Vipin Kumar, P.W. 12 Head Constable Ved Prakash Sharma, and P.W. 13 Dr. N.N. Srivastav (the medical expert). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in re ­ply to which he pleaded that though he got married to the deceased who died on 03.10.1988, but the evidence against him is false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hear ­ing the parties, found that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence pun ­ishable under section 304B IPC, against accused Anupam Dixit, and he was con ­victed accordingly. After hearing on sen ­tence, the trial court sentenced the convict to imprisonment for life under section 304B IPC. Aggrieved by said judgment and or ­der dated 23.03.2001, passed by Addi ­tional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 481 of 1995, this appeal is filed by the convict.