AMIT KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant two appeals arise out of a common judgment. THE appellant Amit Kumar Pandey in Criminal Appeal No. 5112 of 2007 is husband of the deceased Smt. Rama Pandey, who is convicted under Section 304B, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He is also convicted under Section 498A, I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Smt. Urmila Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased and Km. Anita Pandey, sister-in-law are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 4537 of 2007. THEy have been awarded 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 498A, I.P.C. and 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the appellants were directed to deposit fine within one month and in default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment of one year. All the sentences in both the appeals are directed to run concurrently. Father-in-law of the deceased was also sent up for trial in Session Trial No. 314 of 2001 alongwith the other accused but he was acquitted.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the deceased Smt. Rama was married to appellant Amit Kumar Pandey, son of Onkar Pandey, resident of Nagawa Subahi (Dewari), Police Station Khesraha, district Siddharth Nagar on 7.5.1998, Gauna ceremony was performed in the month of April, 1999, thereafter she started living with her in-laws. THE family members of the deceased as well as Onkar Pandey used to live in Mumbai as well. THE first informant Chhotey Lal Pathak P.W. 1 had given dowry to the best of his ability but was unable to give a colour T.V. and Fridge, as a consequence the appellant Amit Kumar Pandey (husband) used to harass and beat her. THE complainant's daughter (deceased) had told her father about the demand of dowry. Her father tried to explain his helplessness and inability to fulfil the demand to the appellant and Onkar Pandey. THE non-fulfilment of demand is an outcome of the present incident that took place on 8.11.1999 in the morning at 8.00 a.m. According to the prosecution Smt. Rama was set ablaze by mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and sister-in-law Anita Pandey at pouring kerosene. THE complainant got the information on telephone while he was in Mumbai. He reached Gorakhpur Medical College on 10.11.1999 where the deceased was admitted after administering first aid at Siddharth Nagar District Hospital. THE complainant claims that the entire prosecution version was narrated by his daughter, consequently a first information report Ext. Ka-7 was got registered on 11.11.1999 at 8.30 a.m. at Police Station Khesraha, district Siddharth Nagar under Sections 498A and 326, I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. THE investigation was handed over to Rudra Kumar Singh, Smt. Rama died on 16.11.1999 in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur as a result of 60% burn injuries and the case was converted under Section 304B, I.P.C.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has restricted his argument only on the validity and correctness of the two dying declarations and has emphasized that in absence of any other evidence, a conviction under Section 304B, I.P.C. cannot be upheld. Several decisions of the Apex Court has also been cited vis-a-vis to the facts of the present case which mainly revolves around the acceptance or non-acceptance of the two dying declarations which are contradictory to one another. The dying declaration given out by the deceased is an eye-witness account and therefore, the question of presumption does not arise. Certain extract of deposition made by the family members of the deceased has been relied upon in support of the argument that the prosecution has unequivocally admitted that after the deceased was referred by the District Hospital Siddharth Nagar to Gorakhpur Medical College, it was the family members of the deceased who had brought her to Gorakhpur and got her admitted in the hospital where two dying declarations were recorded. The authenticity of the first dying declaration recorded on 9.11.1999 cannot be doubted since the deceased herself admitted in the second dying declaration that she has also given her statement previously before the Magistrate, therefore, we are left with no other option but to accept the fact that there were two dying declarations given by the deceased, may be the versions in the two statements, are contradictory to each other. Both the statements have been recorded by the competent person.