LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-399

ASLAM AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On May 17, 2017
Aslam And Anr. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants, Aslam, Smt. Gulbahar, Riyajul Hasan, Phateyab, Shaukat and Smt. Gullo against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2011 passed by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption/Additional District Judge, Meerut in Session Trial No. 177 of 2009 (State v. Phateyab and others) , Sessions Trial No. 178 of 2009 (State v. Gulbahar and two others) and Session Trial No. 179 of 2009 (State v. Aslam) , arising out of Case Crime No. 61 of 2008, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Mundali, District-Meerut, whereby the appellants Phateyab, Smt. Gullo, Smt. Gulbahar and Aslam have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 304B I.P.C., three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 498A I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- each under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act while appellant Riyajul has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304B I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 498A I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the accused appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The order further provided that in case of default in payment of fine awarded for their conviction under Section 498A I.P.C. and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, each of the appellants shall be liable to serve additional imprisonment of two months and four months each respectively.

(2.) Since all the three session trials arise out of the same occurrence and same crime and have been decided by the same judgement and order, they are being heard together and decided by a common judgement.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that P.W.1 Jakir lodged a written report (Ext.Ka.1) at P.S.-Mundali, District-Meerut alleging therein that marriage between his daughter, Sabila and appellant Phateyab, son of Shaukat, resident of Jisouri, P.S. Mundali was solemnized on 07.05.2006 and soon thereafter, her husband and his other relatives started demanding Rs. 50,000/- in cash and one motorcyle as additional dowry although the informant had given sufficient dowry as per his financial capacity to them at the time of the marriage of his daughter and when his daughter conveyed the demands of additional dowry made by her husband and his other relatives from her to him, he told them that he was a very poor man and was not in a position to fulfill their demands on which her husband Phateyab, father-in-law Shaukat, brother-in-law (Jeth) Aslam, Smt. Gulbahar (sister-in-law, Jethani) and Smt. Gullo (sister-in-law, Nanad) came to his house, abused his daughter and also beat her and declared that she would not be allowed to live in her matrimonial home till their demands were fulfilled. On 02.03.2008 with the intention of causing death of his daughter, Smt. Sabila, Smt. Gullo poured kerosene oil on her and her husband set her ablaze. In the written report (Ext.Ka.1), it was further alleged that his daughter, Smt. Sabila was admitted to City Nursing Home where she was being treated for her burn injuries. On the basis of the written report (Ext.Ka.1) lodged by P.W.1 Zakir, Case Crime No. 61 of 2008 was registered at P.S.- Mundali, Distrcit-Meerut under Section 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused.