SUSHIL KUMAR UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Sushll Kumar Upadhyaya has been convicted under Section 302,I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Ballia in S. T. No. 78 of 1984. The prosecution case is that Smt. Mamta, who was the daughter of Srikant Tewari was married on 9.5.83. It is said that in this marriage, a demand for dowry for Rs. 10,000 cash, watch, electric fan, winter suit, scooter and two-in-one radio-cum- tape recorder were made by the appellant Sushil Kumar Upadhyaya. The father of the deceased Smt. Mamta was not able to give scooter, two-in-one radio-cum- tape recorder and winter suit. For want of dowry, the accused was dissatisfied and was very angry since the time of bidai of his wife. He had threatened Sri Kant Tewari, his father-in-law that if the aforesaid articles were not supplied to him, the result would be very bad. After the marriage, the appellant Sushil Kumar Upadhyaya and deceased Smt. Mamta resided in one room of a house in Mohalla Harpur in the City of Ballia. Witnesses Anand Swarup Chaturvedi (P.W. 3), Kamakhya Narain Singh (P.W. 5) and one Arvind also used to reside in separate room of that house. The witnesses have stated that after the marriage, the appellant used to torture his wife and used to say that if the articles were not supplied, it would not be good for her. The deceased Smt. Mamta had informed these things to her father. Mamta had returned to her father's place in November, 1983 and after hearing the torture and demands of the appellant, he was not ready to send her to the house of the appellant. However, on intervention of Shanker Singh (P.W. 6) and Sher Singh (P.W. 4), Mamta was sent with the accused. A letter was sent by the accused to the lady which has been proved as Ext. Ka-1.

(2.) IN between the night of 22nd and 23rd of December, 1983, Smt. Mamta was burnt by the appellant by pouring kerosene oil. She had received 70% burn in the lower part of the body. After this burning, the residents of the house assembled. The residents of the house where the deceased lived with her husband appellant, persuaded the appellant to take Smt. Mamta to the hospital and the appellant took her to the hospital at Ballia with reluctance. IN the District Hospital of Ballia, Smt. Mamta was examined by Dr. Kailash Singh, M.O. at 11 p.m. on 22.12.1983. She had found third decree burn on whole of front and back of abdomen, pelivic region both leg front and back both arms underhung skin. Skin was red in colour. The doctor found that the injury was fresh and produced by dry heat. The injuries were entered in the Accident Register. The true copy of the extract of the register has been proved by the witness. Dr. Kailash Singh P.W. 8 which has been marked as Ext. Ka-24. He had prepared a reference slip for referring the injury to Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, B.H.U., Varanasi. This reference was made at 2.45 p.m. on 23.12.1983. P.W. 2 Srikant Tewari, father of the deceased Smt. Mamta was not informed by the appellant. He had come to know about the burning of his daughter at about 7 a.m. the next day. Srikant Tewari P.W. 2 went to the hospital at Ballia. The appellant did not inform him about the cause of the burning of Smt. Mamta. He gave evasive reply on query and told that Smt. Mamta will tell the cause after she has been cured. It has also come in evidence that one Dr. Vijai Kumar Shukla, M.O. in the District Hospital. Ballia is maternal uncle of the appellant. It has also been stated in the evidence that appellant used to remain with Smt. Mamta in the hospital and has not taken any interest in the treatment of the deceased. It is said that the appellant had threatened Smt. Mamta that if she will state any fact against him then, he will get an injection of poison administered to her and she will die.

(3.) THE F.I.R. of the case was lodged by Srikant Tewari on 5.1.1984 at 4.15 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali, Sadar, Ballia naming the appellant as the person who burnt Smt. Mamta. THE case was actually registered at the police station on 13.1.1984. In the case charges under Section 302,I.P.C. was framed by the Sessions Judge. THE appellant had pleaded not guilty and had claimed to be tried.