VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. - By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.03.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 1109 of 2009, State of U.P. v. Virendra Kumar Gupta and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 368 of 2009, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Rail Bazar, District-Kanpur Nagar, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 498A IPC, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer addition three months rigorous imprisonment, ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs. 5,000/- under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer additional three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA assisted by Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai, brief holder for the State and perused the record of this appeal.

(3.) Crux of event leading to the conviction of the appellant Virendra Kumar Gupta as unfolded by the first information report reflects that the informant Pyare Lal Gupta lodged the written report against the appellant and three others of his family members alleging therein fact that the informant got wedded his daughter Vijay Laxmi with the appellant Virendra Kumar Gupta, resident of 318, Rail Bazar, Cantt. Kanpur Nagar, in February, 2003 according to the Hindu rites and gave sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. But as soon as the informant's daughter Vijay Laxmi came to the house of her in-laws, Rs. 2,00,000/- was demanded towards dowry. She was maltreated and cruelty was perpetrated on her. The informant side pacified and reconciled the in-laws of his daughter but nothing fruitful came out. The informant was under impression that things will be settled soon. However, it never happened. On 04.08.2009, the father of the appellant (Kanhaiya Lal) telephonically informed the informant that her daughter has set herself ablazed by pouring kerosene oil on her. After receiving this information, the informant came to Hallet Hospital, at Kanpur Nagar where he found his daughter dead in emergency room and there was deep burn all over her body. In the concluding part of the first information report, it was described that the death was caused on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Request was made for lodging the report and taking appropriate action. The written report is Ext. Ka-1.