LAWS(UTN)-2005-8-33

MOHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Decided On August 31, 2005
Mohan Prasad and Ors. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two criminal appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 20.12.2001 passed by Mr. R.K. Sharma the then Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in S.T. No. 13 of 2001 and S.T. No. 25 of 2001 whereby the learned Sesssions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant Vlnod Prasad to undergo R.I. for a period often years under Section 304B, IPC, two years RI under Section 498A, IPC and two years RI under Section 201, IPC. Each of the appellants Mohan Prasad, Smt. Basanti Devi and Km. Seema were convicted and sentenced under Section 498A, IPC to undergo one year RI and a fine of Rs. 500 and they were also convicted and sentenced under Section 201, IPC to undergo one year RI and a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine each of the appellant to undergo additional two years S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of Smt. Meena daughter of Bhupendra Prasad Maithani (P.W.I) was solemnized on 18.4.2000 with the appellant Vinod Prasad according to Hindu rites. After the marriage Vinod Prasad (husband), Mohan Prasad (father -in -law), Smt. Basanti Devi (mother -in -law) and Km. Seema (sister -in -law) of the deceased Meena started demanding Disk TV. and 10 Tolas of gold. When the above demand was not fulfilled they committed the murder of Meena on 23.2.2001 who was pregnant. Smt. Meena was M.A. and was working as Nurse in a Centre at Kanda. On 24.2.2001 at 1.00 p.m. a telephonic message was received from her in -laws regarding the illness of Meena. Bhupendra Prasad Maithani (P.W. 1) reached at Kanda at 6 p.m. he saw her daughter lying on the cot in dead condition. On 26.2.2001 when the complainant went at the headquarter of Patwari to lodge the report he was informed that his daughter's dead body was cremated without informing the police and without conducting the postmortem and disappearance of the evidence of offence was caused.

(3.) CHARGE was framed against the appellants under Section 120B, IPC, 498A, 304B, IPC and 201, IPC to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.