UMA KANT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 06.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No.195 of 2004, State of U.P. v. Uma Kant , arising out of Case Crime No.610 of 2002, under Sections 498A, 306 IPC, Police Station-Bahedi, District-Bareilly, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs. 20,000/- under Section 498A IPC, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer addition six months imprisonment and ten years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs. 50,000/- under Section 306 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer addition one year imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Heard Sri R.K. Vaish, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of this appeal.

(3.) Brief facts as unfolded by the first information report and gathered from the record appear to be; that the first information report was lodged at Police Station Bahedi on 14.06.2002 at 4:30 a.m. regarding death of the informant's daughter Usha Devi on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, with the allegations that the informant got wedded his daughter with the appellant Uma Kant in the year 1998 and gave gift/dowry according to his capacity. But after the marriage, the appellant along with his family members raised demand of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and one Hero Honda motorcycle and on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand, the informant's daughter was maltreated and cruelty was perpetrated on her. The informant along with his son Virendra Kumar and wife Rama Devi visited house of in-laws of his daughter in the year 2001 after the marriage when he tried to console the appellant and his family members for not meeting the demand of dowry. The informant's elder son-in-law Parmeshwari Lal visited house of the in-laws of his daughter when his daughter told him that in case her father does not take her away from the house of the in-laws, she will be killed. On this information, the informant along with his son went to take back the victim with him but the appellant and his family members did not send the victim with the informant. On 13.06.2002, at 5:00 p.m., Ex. Pradhan Pappu came to the informant and intimated that the informant's daughter had died. Upon the information so received, the informant along with his family members proceeded to the spot where they saw villagers making preparation for funeral of the deceased Usha Devi. Allegations have been made in the concluding part of the first information report that the informant's daughter has been killed on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand. This dowry demand can be treated to be a cause of abetment. Request was made for lodging the report and taking appropriate action. The written report is Ext. Ka-1.