SUDHIR SAHAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction recorded by Additional Session Judge 10th, Lucknow in S.T. No.96/91, decided on 31.03.1993, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.2 Smt. Kamla Saxena died and as such the appeal as regards her, stood abated. By means of the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted under Section 304B IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the deceased was married to the appellant No.1 on 30.05.1997 at Lucknow. After the marriage, the deceased came to her matrimonial home and in due course of time she delivered a female baby. It is stated that the appellants used to demand a television, scooter and cash since the time of marriage. The parents of the deceased were not able to fulfill the demand of dowry, therefore, the appellants used to treat her with cruelty. According to prosecution story, the deceased was killed by the appellants on 02.05.1990 at about 9.30 PM, when she was drowned in the well. On being informed by the police about the occurrence, the brother of the deceased along with his mother and other members of the family reached the house of the appellants. The deceased was subjected to postmortem examination on 03.05.1990 and when the informant found some injuries on the body of the deceased, a doubt arose in his mind that her daughter must have been killed by the appellants for want of sufficient dowry. The report was lodged on 03.05.1990, which was registered by the police and Circle Officer proceeded to investigate the case. After completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet was submitted against the appellants.

(3.) DURING the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. After the closure of prosecution evidence and the statement of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC, they also produced one witness in defence. Two witnesses were examined as Court witnesses. Learned court below on appraisal of evidence found both the appellants guilty and convicted them, as aforesaid.