HOTI LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD , Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anup Trivedi Advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri Gaurav Kakkar learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State on the prayer of bail of the appellants Rajiv Kumar @ Bobby, Hoti Lal Sharma and Smt. Asharfi Devi @ Inderwati Sharma, who have been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Bulandshahr, in S. T No. 1163 of 2006 (State vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Bobby and others), under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 4 D. P. Act, P. S. Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Rajiv Kumar for the offence under section 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The rest of the appellants have been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under section 304-B IPC. All the appellants have been sentenced under section 498-A IPC and section 4 D. P. Act also for two years' and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively and with fine. We have perused the trial court record as well as other relevant documents including impugned judgment.

(2.) AT the outset, learned counsel for the appellants stated that the prayer of bail of the appellant Rajiv Kumar @ Bobby is not pressed at this stage. Hence on the basis of the statement of learned counsel for the appellants, the prayer for the bail of the appellant Rajiv Kumar @ Bobby is rejected as not pressed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further argued that the remaining two appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also argued that considering the nature of the allegations made against the appellants, the Sessions Judge sentenced these appellants for seven years' rigorous imprisonment only under section 304-B IPC, whereas the husband was sentenced to life imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that except the complainant and his son, other witnesses of the prosecution (except formal witnesses) were declared hostile in the trial court and there is no evidence worthy of reliance to substantiate the allegations of maltreatment of deceased for demand of dowry. Learned counsel also argued that some altercation between the husband and wife must have taken place. Further argued that the deceased and her husband were living separately since after the marriage.