ARADHANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri I. M. Khan, learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) FROM the perusal of the record and impugned judgement it reveals that the appellant Smt. Aradhana Devi and co -accused Gyaneshwar Shukla and Smt. Shanti Devi have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 and 498 -A IPC. The FIR of this case has been lodged by Rakar Tiwari on 22.10.1996 at 3.05 P.M. alleging therein that his sister Smt. Shalini Devi (Deceased) was married to co -accused Gyaneshwar Shukla in February 1991, her in -laws were demanding fridge and colour T.V., due to non fulfilment of demand the in -laws used to torture, harass and beating the deceased, ultimately on 21.10.1996 the first informant received the information through his relatives that her husband, husband's elder brother, mother -in -law and sister -in -law of the deceased had sprinkled the kerosene on her and sat her on fire. The deceased was admitted in the hospital where she died. On quarry made by the first informant the Pharmacist and other persons who were on duty told the first informant that the deceased was admitted in the hospital at about midnight in injured condition, she was saying loudly that her husband, husband's elder brother, her sister -in -law, mother -in -law and Aradhana had sat her on fire after beating and sprinkling kerosene due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained superficial too deep burn all over the body except both the soles, line of redness was present. Scalp hairs partially signed. The cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem injury.

(3.) FROM the side of the prosecution six witnesses were examined, thereafter the statement of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and from defence side D.W. 1 Vishnu Dutt Dixit and D.W. 2 Uma Kant Awasthi were examined. According to the deposition of P.W. 1 Shankar Tiwari the allegation with regard to demand of dowry and cruelty committed with the deceased is against the husband, Jeth Ram Prakash, mother -in -law Shanti Devi and Nanad Uma Devi, it is not against the appellant Aradhana Devi. In FIR the name of the appellant Aradhana Devi was mentioned as Shali of Dr. Hari Prasad Shukla. She stated in her statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. that after death of the deceased, her marriage was performed with husband of the deceased Gyaneshwar Shukla. According to his deposition the specific allegation in this regard is not against Smt. Aradhana Devi. According to the deposition of P.W. 2 Priya Kumar Tiwari also the allegation with regard to appellant she was residing at the house of accused Gyaneshwar Shukla. The specific allegation of demand of dowry has not been made against her. Both that time she was not having the relationship with Gyaneshwar Shukla. According to his examination -in -chief no reference has been made with regard to the dying declaration of the deceased made in the hospital. The other witnesses are formal witnesses. In the present case pharmacist and other employee of the hospital, in their presence the deceased was uttering with regard to commission of the alleged offence have not been examined. The case of the appellant Smt. Aradhana Devi is distinguishable with the other co -accused persons, therefore, she is entitled for bail.