UDAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2013 and 17.06.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.01 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

(2.) Briefly stated, according to the prosecution, deceased Ramaiya was 24 years of age when she died. She and appellant-Uday Kumar married on 11.11.2010. Both belong to the State of Kerala. The appellant had a posting in Askot, District Pithoragarh. He was residing there in a rented accommodation along with the deceased and his parents. At 3:30 A.M. on 03.09.2011, their landlord PW2 Rajesh Chand informed the police that Smt. Ramaiya died due to burn injuries. It was recorded in the general diary of police station Askot as report no.2. Upon this information having been received, the inquest was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem. From the place of occurrence, some burn clothes, match box, etc. were taken into custody. According to the prosecution, PW4 Rameshan, father of the deceased sent a report to the police station through a fax message, and a chik FIR No.02/2001 on 03.09.2011 at 23:25 P.M. was recorded. Based on it, a case under Section 304-B IPC was registered against the appellant.

(3.) According to the FIR, after the marriage, the appellant had tortured her wife-deceased physically and mentally in connection with dowry demand. The first informant received a message that his daughter poured the kerosene oil and died of burns. PW4 Rameshan raised a suspicion in the FIR, that it is not a case of suicide, but it is a brutal murder. During the investigation, the statement of PW2 Rajesh Chand, who was the landlord of the appellant, was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"?). After investigation, chargesheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the appellant under Section 304-B IPC. Cognizance was taken against him and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. On 17.02.2012, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 304-B IPC and in the alternate under Section 302 IPC and Section 498A IPC, to which, the appellant denied and claimed trial.