RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A family of Ashok Kumar consisting of himself A-3, his wife Smt. Urmila Devi A-2, sons Rakesh Kumar (husband) A-1 and younger son Kamlesh Kumar A-4 (dewar) have challenged their conviction and sentence under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and section 4 D.P. Act imposed by Additional Session's Judge, F.T.C. No. 20, Allahabad vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.9.2006 recorded in S.T. No. 1360 of 2004, State Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others relating to P.S. Uttraon, District Allahabad (crime no. 146 of 2004). Trial Judge has imposed common sentence on all the appellants under section 498-A I.P.C. for three years RI with Rs. 5,000/- fine, default sentence being six months further RI. 3 years RI with Rs. 5,000/- fine under section 201 I.P.C., default sentence being six months further RI. 2 months RI with Rs. 10,000/- fine under section 4 D.P. Act, default sentence being further 8 months RI. However for the charge under section 304-B I.P.C., Smt. Urmila Devi A-2 has been sentenced to 7 years RI whereas rest of the appellants have been sentenced to 8 years RI. It is this conviction and sentence which has been challenged in the instant appeal by the appellants.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the arguments harangued by either side, briefly sketched, prosecution allegations were that Vinod Kumari (deceased) aged about 27 years, sister of informant Mithai Lal Jaiswal had tied her nuptial knot with Rakesh Kumar A-1, who is the son of A-2 and A-3 and elder brother of A-4 and spouses had a son aged about four years. In the marriage according to the fiscal means of the informant, dowry was given but the in-laws, husband and dewar were not satisfied.

(3.) ACCUSED persons were summoned and finding their case triable by court of session's, their case was committed, where it was registered as S.T. No. 1368 of 2004, State Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others. All the accused persons were charged under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and section ? D.P. Act on 18.1.2005, which charges were denied by them, who claimed to be tried. In it's endeavour to establish guilt of the appellants, prosecution relied upon oral evidences of seven witnesses, out of whom informant Mithai Lal Jaiswal brother of the deceased P.W. 1, Manju Devi bhabhi of the deceased P.W. 2 and Radhey Shyam father of the deceased P.W. 3 were fact witnesses. Formal witnesses included C.O. D.R. Shukla P.W. 4, Tehsildar who had conducted inquest P.W. 5, constable R.A. Singh who had prepared FIR and GD P.W. 6 and Autopsy Dr. K.N. Singh P.W. 7. In their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused persons denied incriminating circumstances put to them occurred in prosecution evidences and took the defence of their false implication. To establish alibi of Kamlesh Kumar A-4, they examined Dr. V.K. Jain as D.W. 1.