SACHIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants, in these appeals, have assailed their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Session Trial Nos. 81 and 164 of 2007 vide judgment and order dtd. 31/3/2014 and Appellants - Sachin, Ajeet and Vinod were directed to undergo imprisonment for life under Ss. 304-B of the Penal Code whereas, Appellants - Omwati and Mantlesh were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Ss. 304-B of the Penal Code; all the Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000.00 each and in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of six months under Sec. 201 of the Penal Code with the further stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The Appellants - Sachin, Ajeet Singh (father of Sachin) and Smt. Omwati were charged with the offence under Sec. 304-B and 201 of the Penal Code interalia on the allegation that on 6/1/2007, PW-1 Mohit Kumar lodged an F.I.R. before the S.H.O. Manglaur, stating that his sister - deceased's marriage was solemnized on 23/2/2006 with Sachin S/o Ajeet Singh, R/o Village Tikola, P.S. Manglaur, District - Haridwar. He further stated that for solemnization of her marriage, they have expended the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs and gave dowry in the form of colour TV, washing machine, double-bed, sofa, cloths, utensils and ornaments etc. Further, the case of the prosecution is that even though, the deceased's father has given dowry to the husband of the deceased, they were not satisfied with it. Soon after the marriage, they started demanding a car and started torturing her both mentally and physically. On different occasions, when she was visiting her maternal house, she was complaining about their behavior and demands for more dowry. She was assured by her parents that after the festival of Teej, they were tried to satisfy the demand but they were not satisfy with the promises and started ill-treating the deceased even more. About 03 months prior to her death, Sachin, his father and his uncle left the deceased in the maternal house when she was pregnant. But when they made them understand about 20 days prior to the occurrence they took back the deceased with promise that they will not demand any motor car and shall not also ill-treat the deceased.

(3.) The defence, on the other hand, examined 8 witnesses in an attempt to show that the deceased was suffering from certain ailments because of her pregnancy and that the death of the deceased was natural. The evidences of the prosecution witnesses show while being examined PW 1 - Mohit Kumar - complainant has reiterated the stand taken in the F.I.R. and stated that his sister was being tortured for demand of dowry. Regarding the demand for dowry and the settlement 20 days prior to the occurrence, the witness has stated that about 20 days prior to the death of the deceased - Amita, the Appellant - Sachin - husband of the deceased, father-in-law - Ajeet Singh and brother of Ajeet Singh's - Vinod were called to their Village - Jaankheda, some gentlemen of the said village were also called. It is further case of the prosecution that those village gentlemen or the village, where her maternal home situates, made these Appellants understand not to demand further dowry as the complainant and his father has no money with them. They were given assurance on behalf of the society, and therefore, they understood the situation and took away deceased from her maternal house with a promise that they will not ill-treat or torture the deceased - Amita.