RAJENDRA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 23.11.1995, passed by the then Special Judge, Unnao in Session Trial No.80 of 1992, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to Case Crime No.139 of 1991, Police Station-Sohramau, District-Unnao, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, & 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The prosecution has examined Ram Kumar Dixit as PW-1, Shiv Pal as PW-2, Smt. Medana (complainant) as PW-3, Suresh Chandra Tiwari as PW-4, Dr. R.C. Kushwaha as PW-5 and Jaydev Singh Verma (Investigating Officer) as PW-6. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the strange part of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the appellants even denied the marriage and have shown their ignorance whether she was subjected to post-mortem or not. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity and the deceased has committed suicide.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was a beautiful lady and she wanted to marry someone else and did not like the present appellant therefore she committed suicide. It has also been submitted that appellant-Rajendra himself took the deceased to the hospital and the witnesses of fact, except Smt. Medana PW-3, have not supported the prosecution version. It has also come in the evidence that the First Information Report was lodged after consultation with another son-in-law. There was no injury on the body of the deceased and the appellants have been wrongly convicted.