KUNDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2001, passed by Mr. Ram Das, the then Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in S.T. No. 2/2001, whereby the appellant -Kundan Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years under Section 304B, I.P.C. Both the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years under Section 498A, I.P.C. However, the appellant -Mohan Singh was acquitted from the charge under Section 304B, I.P.C. All the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that a report was lodged on 24.8.2000 at the Patti Patwari by one Anand Singh Rana alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter -Smt Pushpa Devi was solemnised three years ago with the appellant Kundan Singh according to Hindu rites and customs. Immediately after the marriage, her husband used to assault her on account of demand of dowry and the 'Jeth' and 'Jethani' of his daughter i.e. Mohan Singh and Smt. Kamla Devi respectively also used to harass Smt. Pushpa Devi by giving her physical and mental torture. Whenever Smt. Pushpa Devi came to her parental house, she used to narrate her parents the entire story about the dowry demand. It was further alleged in the FIR that Smt. Kamla Devi used to say the deceased that they would not keep her in the matrimonial house because Smt. Pushpa Devi (deceased) was not having a child. The investigation was taken up as usual which culminated into the submission of the charge -sheet. After submission of charge -sheet the accused were committed to the Court of Session for trial and the Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons. The accused persons denied charges levelled against them and claimed the trial.

(3.) IN the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Kundan Singh has stated in his evidence that the deceased has committed suicide, as she was not having a child. No defence evidence was adduced by the appellants.