STATE OF U P Vs. KULDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Government appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.4.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No. 16), Bulandshahr, acquitting the respon ­dents under sections 498 -A and 304 -B (and in the alternative, under section 302 IPC) and under sections 3/4 of the Dowry Pro ­hibition Act. The prosecution case was that time de ­ceased Smt. Mamta had been married to respondent Kuldeep on 21.11.1997. Al ­though dowry was given during the mar ­riage; however, the respondents Kuldeep, his mother Smt. Shiromani and his brothers Pradeep and Deepak were not satisfied with the dowry and they used to physically and mentally torture Mamta for additional dowry. They were pressurizing Mamta to bring Rs. 50,000/ - in cash and a VCR. When Mamta disclosed this fact to the in ­formant, Rama Shanker, brother of Mamta, then he along with another brother Hari Om Sharma came to Mamta's sasural (matrimonial house) at Gulaoti in Buland ­shahr and expressed their inability to pro ­vide the cash and VCR demanded. At that time the respondents agreed, but 20 days prior to Mamta's death, Mamta's husband, respondent Kuldeep, visited Hari Om who used to reside in Delhi and started demanding Rs. 25,000/ - as additional dowry. When Hari Om refused to pay the said amount, then Kuldeep is said to have held out a threat that he would murder Mamta. Kuldeep returned home and thereafter he used to assault Mamta, about which she gave information to the informant Rama Shanker and Hari Om. On 1.5.2001 at about 9 p.m. Kuldeep phoned Hari Om and told him that Mamta was unwell but he did not allow Hari Om to talk to Mamta. At about 11 p.m. the bahnoi (sister's husband) of the informant, who was also a resident of Qasba Gulaoti, telephoned Hariom and told him that Mamta's sasuralwallas (in -laws) had murdered her. On that information the informant Ram Shanker and Hari Om reached the residence of the respon ­dents in Gulaoti by a Maruti van. They saw Mamta's dead body lying in the courtyard. Thereafter, the informant Ram Shanker proceeded to the police station Gulaoti and lodged a report (Ext. Ka 1) as aforesaid on 2.5.2001 at 3.40 a.m. On the basis of the said report, constable Anil Kumar prepared the chik report (Ext. Ka 6) and registered a case at Crime No. 158 of 2001 under sections 304 -B/323/506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Pro ­hibition Act. He also made GD entry (Ext. Ka 7) about the crime on 2.5.2001 at 3.40 a.m.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the Circle Officer, Khurja, Sri Subhash Chandra Shakya started investigation in the case and in ­spected the place of incident and prepared the siteplan (Ext. Ka 5). The inquest (Ext. Ka 9) was conducted on Mamta's dead body by SDM, Sadar, Achchey Lal Yadav. The inquest did not mention the cause of death. Mamta's dead body was sent for postmortem after it was sealed by Sri Ach ­chey Yadav, through constables Pramod Kumar and Niranjan Singh. The said neces ­sary papers were presented in the mortu ­ary and post -mortem was conducted by Dr. Sarvodaya Kumar, PW 4, on 2.5.2001 at 3.25 p.m. at the mortuary in Bulandshahr. The post -mortem report (Ext. Ka 2) showed o. ante mortem injury on the deceased. As the cause of death could not be ascertained, viscera was preserved. The Investigating Officer sent the viscera for examination to the Forensic Laboratory in Agra. As per the forensic report dated 25.5.2001, or -ganochloro insecticide was found in the viscera. Subsequently, on 3.5.2001 the investi ­gation was transferred to PW 5, Manoj Kumar Jha, Circle Officer, Sikanderabad, who after recording the statements of the witnesses 'and taking other steps for inves ­tigation, submitted the charge -sheet on 28.7.2001 against the respondents. On 22.9.2001 the forensic report about the vis ­cera was received, which was sent to Court. PW 4, Dr. Sarvodaya Kumar, who has con ­ducted the post -mortem on the deceased on 2.5.2001 at 3.25 p.m. found that the age of the deceased was about 27 years. The probable time of death was 3 or 4 days. Rigor mortis had passed from the upper extremity though it was present in the lower extremity.There was no apparent damage to the natural orifices and no ante -mortem injury was seen. But the mem ­brane, brains, pleura, trachea and bronchi, right lung, left lung, pericardium, heart, peritoneum, oesophagus, spleen, bladder were all congested. A charge under sec ­tions 323, 506, 498 -A and 304 -B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against the four respondents by the learned trial Judge on 27.6.2002. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THE witnesses of fact are PW 1, Rama Shanker, the informant, who was a brother of the deceased Smt. Mamta. PW 2, Rajesh Kumar Kaushik, who was the behnoi (husband of sister) of the deceased and was an intermediary in the marriage of the deceased with respondent Kuldeep. He used to reside in qasba Gulaoti where the deceased was also residing after her mar ­riage. PW 3, Hari Om Sharma, was another brother of the deceased who used to reside in Delhi.