LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-171

RAJVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

Decided On April 11, 2023
RAJVEER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

(2.) Present two appeals were filed against the judgement and order dtd. 28/10/2017 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Court No.3, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No.271 of 2012 (State Vs. Rajveer Singh and another) by which both the appellants were awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.20,000.00 each, under Sec. -302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and in case of non- payment of fine they would further undergo two years incarceration. Appellants were also imposed six months imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000.00 each under Sec. -201 IPC and in case of non-payment of fine, they would further undergo one year imprisonment. Prosecution Case

(3.) As per the prosecution case, first informant Harbir Singh Arya Advocate (PW-1) had given a Tehrir dtd. 20/10/2011 to Station House Officer, Police Station-Narora, District- Bulandshahr stating therein that his son Lavkesh was married to Pooja, daughter of Rajveer resident of village-Kamalpur in the year 2009. Since, the date of marriage Smt. Pooja refused to live with his son Lavkesh and she has also lodged case under dowry prohibition act as well as for maintenance against him as well as his family. On 18/10/2011 at 9:30 pm, he received a phone call from Gajraj Singh, son of Banshi Singh, resident of Ganaura Nagli that his daughter-in-law Smt. Pooja has been killed by her parents, brother and Rahisuddin by forcibly administering poison to her and just to falsely implicate him, they initially planned to bring the dead body of Pooja at his house. When they could not get chance, they disposed off the dead body of Pooja by burning it. After receiving the aforesaid information, first informant, Harbir Singh had given information of this incident to SP Sri R.S. Rathore on his mobile phone. It was further mentioned that he could not register the case because of the fear of accused persons.