UMESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Vimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and have perused the trial Court judgment, record and the written objections that have been filed by the learned A.G.A. The prayer for bail in this criminal appeal has been preferred by the husband of the deceased, who has been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 1), Hathras by an order dated 29.5.2013. The appellant has been acquitted under sections 304B, 498A and 3/4 D.P. Act, by the impugned order, but convicted under sections 302 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C., under which an alternative charge was framed on 24.4.13.

(2.) The prosecution allegations as mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by Malkhan Singh, P.W.-1 father of the deceased Reena on 3.12.2011 at P.S. Sikandararau were that Reena was married to the appellant Umesh three years earlier. She had been beaten and thrown out of her sasural in Nagla Gulabi on 12.11.2011. After that she was brought to Nagla Babool by her uncle Rameshwar and the informant, where she started residing from 13.11.2011. On 28.11.2011, the appellant Umesh and his elder brother Munesh had taken away Reena on a motorcycle after promising that they would not torture her in the future. However the informant learnt that Umesh and Munesh and his family members had murdered Reena and had thrown her corpse into the Nadrai Canal. On this information, the informant, his brothers and others went to the Sasural of Reena in Nagla Gulabi where they learnt that Reena had been murdered and that she had not been seen after 28.11.2011. When they again reached Reena's sasural on 2.12.2011, they found the house empty and that the appellant and his family members had absconded, with all their belongings. After that the informant and others searched for the corpse of Reena, which was found in the Nadrai canal, regarding which an information was given at P.S. Dolna. Dislike for Reena, demand of dowry, and illicit relations of Umesh, with his brother Munesh's wife have been mentioned as the motives for the crime in the FIR.

(3.) 13 witnesses of fact have been examined in this case. However the formal witnesses were not examined as the defence admitted the genuineness of the prosecution documents. The fact witnesses included, the informant Malkhan Singh, P.W. 1, father of Reena, who denied the allegations of dowry demand, or of Reena being driven out of her sasural after being beaten on 12.11.11, but he admitted that she had come to reside in her phupha P.W. 2 Swaraj's house on 13.11.11 at Sikandarpur (near Nagla Babool). He denied that Umesh or Munesh had taken back Reena on their motorcycle from Nagla Babool or Sikandarpur on 28.11.11. He had not received any information that Umesh, Munesh and their family members had murdered Reena and cast her corpse in the Nadrai Canal in district Kanshiram Nagar. But he learnt that Reena's corpse had been found in the Nadrai Canal and had even gone to Reena's sasural in this connection on 28-11-11, but he did not see Reena there. He admitted lodging a written report scribed by Rajpal Singh at P.S. Sikandrau, on which he had appended his signature. However he stated in his cross-examination that he had lodged the report at the instance of the police and the opponents of Umesh who were present at the police station when he went to lodge the report.