GHAN SHYAM @ PAHADI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal appeals i.e. [(Criminal appeal No.1416 of 2006-Ghan Shyam @ Pahadi V. State of U.P.) and (Criminal Appeal No.1173 of 2006-Hari Lal and Another V. State of U.P.)] arose from the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.06.2006, thus, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In these appeals, the appellants namely Ghan Shyam @ Pahadi, Hari Lal and Smt. Deoki have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.06.2006 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Court Room No.8, Faizabad, in Sessions Trial No.269 of 1991, arising out of Case Crime No.160 of 1991, of Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby and whereunder all the appellants were convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default in depositing the fine, they were further directed undergo imprisonment for life for two years. All the appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for committing an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and are directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the said offence. The appellants were further directed that if the appellants failed to pay the fine then they shall further undergo imprisonment for one year.

(3.) The prosecution case, as per the written report of the informant namely Salik Ram, is that his daughter namely Savitri Devi was married to appellant Ghan Shyam @ Pahadi 6 to 7 years before the date of lodging of the First Information Report. It is further alleged that inmates of in-laws family of his daughter were assaulting and harassing her for demand of dowry. It is stated that whenever the informant's daughter used to come to her parental house, she disclosed about the same. It is stated that on 22-23 May there was a marriage in the family of appellant Hari Lal and in that marriage also the appellants had assaulted his daughter Savitri Devi. It is further stated that the informant had also attended the said marriage and his daughter disclosed about the assault. It is then stated that in the night of 24-25 May, the informant received information that the daughter of informant had fallen ill, whereupon the informant and his wife went to the house of the appellants, where they saw that his daughter was lying dead. It is alleged that after seeing the informant and his wife all the appellants fled away.