RAM BALI VERMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2003 passed by A.D.J./F.T.C., Court No.4, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.718 of 2002, Police Station Rampur Kanla, District-Sitapur, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo twelve years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A I.P.C. together with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant will have to undergo three months' additional imprisonment, one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act together with a fine of Rs.2000/-and in default of payment of fine, the appellant will have to undergo two months additional imprisonment.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal in brief are that the complainant Chhotkann Verma lodged a written report before the police of police Station-Rampur Kanla alleging that his sister Guddi aged about 25 years was married to appellant-Rambali; that dowry as per his status was given during the marriage; that the appellant further demanded mattresses and bed along with bicycle; that the complainant could not fulfill the demand because of his poverty and that is why his sister was being penalized and harassed for want of dowry; that he was informed that his sister was killed on intervening night of 17/18.08.2002; that he along with his family members reached to the house of in laws of his sister and there they saw that the dead body and thereafter he submitted written report regarding dowry death; that FIR Chik No.71/02 relating to Case Crime No.129/02, under Sections 304-B & 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered by the police of the police station concerned; that G.D. No.17/7.30 dated 18.08.2002 was prepared and the Circle Officer, Sidhauli conducted the investigation; that the inquest was conducted by Nayab Tehsildar and then the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination; that the investigating officer after observing due formalities submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act; that the appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried; that the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses to prove its case; that the first witness is P.W.1 Chhotkann, P.W.2 is Prabhu, P.W.3 is C.P. Vishwapal Singh, P.W.4 is Investigating Officer and P.W.5 is Dr. R.K. Srivastava, who conducted autopsy, P.W.6 is Nayab Tehsildar who conducted inquest; that the prosecution exhibited all the relevant papers i.e the Chick F.I.R., written report, G.D., site plan, autopsy report, inquest report and all the other concerned papers; that during the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant had narrated that the allegations are false, he was not present during the incident and produced defence witness Ram Prakash and also submitted documentary evidence Ext. Ka-1 which is the certificate showing that he was employed as Chaukidar and was performing duty on the fateful night; that the court after going through the evidence held the appellant guilty under Section 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act; that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case but the court on the basis of conjectures and surmises convicted the appellant. The appellant has adduced the evidence and submitted documentary evidence that he was not present on the night of the occurrence. He was employed as Chaukidar and he was on duty on that day, therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offence which took place in his absence.