GOKUL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Gokul and Mansa have been convicted under Section 306 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Unnao in S.T.No.1038 of 1994 decided on 06.07.1996, whereby both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of nine years.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the daughter of informant, namely, Sushila was married to the appellant no.1 Gokul two years prior to the occurrence. The informant had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage, but since the daughter of the informant could not conceive, the appellants and their father, namely, Chooranmal has been continuously treating her with cruelty. She came to the house of her parents about four or five times after the marriage and every time she complained about the cruel treatment of the appellants and their father Chooranmal. On 18.09.1994, the informant was informed by someone that his daughter has been killed by the appellants and their father Chooranmal. The informant immediately rushed to Sasural of his daughter, where he found her daughter dead. The deceased was badly burnt and no one was present in the house. An FIR was lodged by the informant on 19.09.1994 and a case under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B IPC was registered against the appellants and their father Chooranmal. The police reached the spot, prepared the inquest of the dead body and sent the same for post -mortem.? The Investigating Officer then proceeded to record the statement of the informant as well as other witnesses and also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site -plan. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge -sheet against all the three accused persons named in the FIR. However, before the charge could be framed, Chooranmal died, and as such, the trial proceeded only against the present appellants. ?

(3.) THE learned trial court framed charges under Section 302/34 IPC and in the alternative a charge under Section 306 IPC was also framed. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses during trial and the appellants also examined three witnesses in defence. The learned trial court by the impugned judgment found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment of nine years each.