RAJESH GULATI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment and order dtd. 31/8/2017/1/9/2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2011, State v. Rajesh Gulati, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 302, 201 IPC and has been sentenced as under:-

(2.) The prosecution case as unfolded is as follows. The appellant and the deceased Anupama Gulati fell in love and married on 10/2/1999. After marriage, they both went to United States of America ("USA"), where they stayed upto 2008. In USA, the appellant had started beating the deceased; he was aggressive towards her. In the year 2006, they were blessed with twin children, a baby boy and a baby girl. In the year 2008, they came to India. The appellant left the deceased in her parental home saying that he is going to USA again so as to wind up his activities there. In the year 2009, when the Green Card of the deceased was going to expire and she was not aware about the location of the appellant, she decided to go to USA so as to find the whereabouts of the appellant. She booked her ticket and sent an email to the appellant about her program. But, the appellant replied that he is not in USA and he is returning.

(3.) Some time in the month of March or April in the year 2009, the appellant returned to Delhi. Thereafter, the deceased, the appellant and their children shifted to Dehradun, where they stayed in a rented house. The deceased revealed to her brother PW 1 Sujan Kumar Pradhan that during the period when the appellant was not with them in Delhi, the appellant had married a woman, namely, PW 25 Jhuma Dutta in Calcutta. The appellant was advised to forget PW 25 Jhuma Dutta and stay with the deceased and his children. The deceased wanted to grow her children with the appellant. The appellant had started beating the deceased and he would often compare her with his second wife PW 25 Jhuma Dutta. PW 1 Sujan Kumar Pradhan, the brother of the deceased had advised the deceased that she should return to Delhi, but the deceased insisted that this is what the appellant wants so that he may stay with his second wife and she did not pay heed to the advice of her brother.