KRANTI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the FIR in which it is stated by the informant, Chandrabhushan Upadhyay that his daughter Priya was married in 2009 with accused-applicant no. 1, Kranti Mishra according to Hindu rites and at that time as per demand, a sum of Rs.4,50,000 in cash, jewellery and domestic articles were provided apart from one motorcycle Hero Honda (Passion Pro). At the event of Tilak, Rs.1,00,000/- was given, apart from kitchen utensils etc. At the time of marriage, the applicant no.1 (husband), applicant no.2, Om Prakash Mishra (father-in-law), applicant no. 3, Rakesh Mishra, (brother-in-law) started demanding four wheeler as additional dowry because of which 'Bidai' of his daughter could be done. After much persuasion on the next day, on 24.11.2019 'Gauna' was performed and when her daughter (deceased) went to her matrimonial home, all the accused-applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jeth, Nand and Jethani started making taunts that marriage was performed for very cheap as the accused-applicant no. 1 was holding degree of M.B.A., who could have got much better dowry and started demanding four wheeler or a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and it was made clear to her that unless the said amount is given, it would not be possible for her to live in matrimonial home peacefully. After some days, when the informant's daughter came to her parent's home after 'Bidai', all these facts were disclosed by her. Thereafter, the informant had made enquiry about this from the accused side, they reiterated demand of four wheeler or Rs.7,00,000/- and had told that till the said demand was not fulfilled, 'Bidai' of the deceased would not be got done but after much persuasion, 'Bidai' of the deceased took place in the year 2010. The husband-applicant no. 1 had taken the deceased to Mumbai where he used to work but even there he continued to make taunts and had also made harassment of the victim physically and mentally on various occasions and she was also pressurized to give her jewellary so that after selling the same, four wheeler could be purchased but for that, the deceased had refused. When the said refusal was made, she used to be beaten up by banging her head against the wall and had used filthy language and threat of divorce was also given. He used to raise the volume of the T.V. and close the door of the house so that screaming or weeping of the deceased would not go out and the husband-applicant no. 1 had gone outside for 3-4 hours closing her from outside. The family members of the accused-applicant no. 1 used to telephone the accused-applicant no. 1 for harassing her in Mumbai. Ultimately, in the year 2012, the accused-applicant no. 1 had dropped the deceased near the house of the informant retaining the jewellary at his home. One child was also born out of the wedlock who was four years old. The accused-applicant no. 1 had filed a case for giving divorce in the District Court, Jaunpur being case no. 559 of 2016 but looking to the fact that there was bleak chance of improvement in the conduct of the accused-applicant no.1, a case no. 801 of 2017 was filed in the Court of CJM under Domestic Violence Act. In the said case, when applicant no. 2 Om Prakash had appeared in the Court and met the informant out side the Court, he had again reminded to fulfill the demand failing which, the informant's daughter would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial home and it was also stated by the accused-applicant no. 2 that his son after selling the property, would go to Mumbai and police would not be able to find him. The informant was also threatened by the accused-applicant no. 2 that he would defame the informant in the society and the informant would not be able to live in the society and, therefore, his children would also not be able to get married and that his daughter and grandson would also be got eliminated. When the informant had gone to District Court, his daughter Priya and son Deepak Kumar Upadhyay were also accompanying him and were standing in search of vehicle, then it was stated by the accused-applicant no. 2 that in his house also, his elder son Rakesh Mishra and his son-in-law were practicing advocates in District Court, Jaunpur and that they would continue to contest the case against the informant side. It was also stated that more than seven years have elapsed, hence case of dowry death cannot be imposed upon them. Instead of improving relation with the deceased, the husband-applicant no. 1 had also filed a case for divorce and started giving threat to the deceased from unknown telephone nos, hence first information report was lodged against the accused-applicant no. 1 and other family members being case crime no.836 of 2017 under section 498-A, 506, 504 I.P.C at P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi on 22.8.2017. In this manner, the informant's daughter used to remain mentally disturbed because of the case having been filed against her and having received notices on different dates from the court and used to say that despite having been tortured, she could not get any case registered against the persons of her sasural and was passing time with her child in her parents' home and even then, she was not being allowed to remain peacefully and in these circumstances after getting fed-up, on 23.10.2017 at about 6.45 p.m. she committed suicide by hanging herself by a stole from the ceiling fan, for which the accused-applicants are responsible.

(3.) Thereafter, attention was drawn to the post-mortem report of the deceased in which hyoid bone was found intact and only one ligature mark was found to have been sustained by the deceased and the cause of death was mentioned as asphyxia as a result of hanging.