PANKAJ RAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURESH Kumar Singh Vs. State of U. P. : 2009 (4) Supreme 529 vinod PRASAD J. Appellant Pankaj Rai has challenged his conviction under Sections 498-A, 304-B I. P. C. and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act recorded by sessions Judge, Sonbhadra vide his impugned judgment and order dated 4. 1. 2006 rendered in S. T. No. 115 of 2001 (State Vs. Pankaj Rai and others ). Under Section 498-A I. P. C, he has been sentenced to one year R. I. , under section 304-B life imprisonment and under section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act six months r. I. AH the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution version, as is mentioned in the FIR Ext Ka-1, Pramila D/o informant Lal Sahab Rai P. W. 1, tied her nupital knot with appellant Pankaj Rai S/o Rajnikant rai, on 29. 1. 2001 according to the Hindu custom and rights. After the wed lock, Pramila (deceased) came to her in-laws house but just after 15 or 20 days, she informed the informant that her appellant husband, his father-in-law Rajnikant Rai and mother-in-law smt. Lalpari Devi were demanding a four wheeler and for fulfillment of the said demand, she was being tortured and therefore she requested that she be brought back and if the said demand is not satisfied her life will not be spared. According to the informant's case,he has given ornaments, cash, clothes etc. in the marriage. When the informant came to in -laws house at Obra to meet her daughter and take her back, present appellant along with his parents repeated the demand of a four wheeler and, on inability being shown by the informant in fulfilling the said demand, they refused to send back Pramila unless the demand is fulfilled. They even did not allow him to meet his daughter and, therefore, informant had to return back to Itarsi, where he was posted as Section Engineer in the railways. Subsequent thereto appellant repeated his demand on telephone as well and even threatened the informant that the non fulfillment of it will result in ugly consequences. Pramila used to inform her mother regarding demand and torture.

(3.) ON 4. 4. 2001 at 1. 30 a. m. , an unknown telephone call informed the father informant that his daughter Pramila had bade a adieu to this ephemeral world. Informant rushed to obra immediately and after reaching there, inquired from the neighbours who informed him that non fulfillment of dowry demand costed life of his daughter who was murdered by her husband and in-laws and, thereafter was burnt to conceal the evidences of murder crime committed by them.