DALIP SINGH Vs. KISHAN SINGH KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the aforesaid Criminal Revision and the Criminal Appeal arise out of the same judgment and order dated 29.3.2004, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, therefore, both the cases are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. PW 1 Dalip Singh (revisionist herein) wrote a complaint (Ex. Ka-1) on 10.12.2002 against Kishan Singh Kunwar and Laxmi Devi, which was registered as Case Crime No. 225/2002 at police station Banbasa, Lohaghat, District 145 Champawat under section 304B IPC. The incident allegedly took place sometimes between 30.11.2002 to 9.12.2002. The distance between the place of incident and the police station concerned was 4 kms. hence, there appears to be no delay in lodging FIR. The informant PW 1 was the father of the deceased. It was stated in the FIR that the victim was married to the appellant-Kishan Singh Kunwar on 10.3.2002 at Champawat. Husband and mother-in-law of the victim demanded a maruti car as dowry after her marriage. It was also mentioned in the FIR that a motorcycle was given to the appellant as dowry in the marriage. The husband and mother-in-law of the victim (i.e. Kishan Singh Kunwar and Laxmi Devi respectively) used to harass her for want of giving sufficient dowry. The victim made a complaint of the same to PW 1 and PW 2. PW 1 counseled the appellant and his family members not to harass the victim. Even then, the accused persons continued to harass her. The same was informed by the victim to PW 1 on telephone also. On 1.12.2002, the appellant informed PW 1 that the victim was missing since 30.11.2002. Then, PW 1 along-with his wife went to Pachpokaria (Champawat) from Aligarh. Accused persons misguided them. They started searching victim and when she was not found, an application to this effect was given in police station Banbasa. On 9.12.2002, PW 1 alongwith his wife came to know that a dead body of a woman was hanging on a tree. PW 1 went there alongwith his relatives and police personnel only to find that the dead body belonged to his daughter. The husband and mother-in-law of the victim killed the victim for want of giving sufficient dowry.

(2.) After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against the husband and mother-in-law of the victim (i.e. Kishan Singh Kunwar and Laxmi Devi) for the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge against the accused persons was framed for the offence under section 304-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) PW 1 Dalip Singh (informant, father of the victim), PW 2 Bhawani Devi (mother of the victim), PW 3 Prayag Singh, PW 4 Prem Singh, PW 5 Dan Singh, PW 6 S.I. Radhe Shyam and PW 7 C.O. Dr. K.L. Sah were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Genuineness of the post-mortem report was admitted on behalf of the accused persons. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW 1 Kushal Singh and DW 2 Mohan Singh were examined in defence.