ANOOP Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed against a judgement dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge Xth Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 519 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime no. 228 of 2012, under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 I.P.C. and Section ? Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Barra, district-Kanpur Nagar, whereby learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to 12 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B I.PC., two years imprisonment under Section 498A with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine two months additional simple imprisonment, two years imprisonment under Section 201 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine one month simple imprisonment, two year imprisonment under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine one month simple imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that Marriage between the deceased and the appellant was solemnized six years ago. General allegations have been made against the appellant and his other family members that they were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rs. One lac) as additional dowry from the deceased and her father and due to non fulfillment of the aforesaid demand of dowry, the deceased was being maltreated and tortured by them. On 12.01.2012 the accused-appellant along with his other family members assaulted the deceased and she sustained injuries on her head. On information, father of the deceased reached at her house and after seeing her condition, he along with her daughter reached at police station Barra. The the injured was taken to hospital to get her medically examined on 13.1.2012 and thereafter, this FIR was lodged. After lodging of the FIR the matter was compromised and the daughter of the complainant came back to her matrimonial home. On 24.2.2012, in the evening, father of the deceased received information that her daughter is missing. Upon which the father of the deceased reached her house and inquired about her and started searching her whereabouts but her whereabouts was not known. The father of the deceased raised suspicion that due to non fulfillment of the additional demand of dowry her husband and in-laws after committing her murder had hidden her dead body somewhere.

(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, stated that he does not propose to challenge the impugned judgement and order on its merits. He, however, prayed for modification of the order of the sentence for the period already undergone by the appellant.