RAKESH BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 15.4.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 683 of 2000 in case crime No. 35 of 2000 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh by which he convicted and sentenced the appellants under section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine further one year simple imprisonment has been ordered. Further sentence is under section 498A IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine further one month simple imprisonment, under section 201 IPC for three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further two months simple imprisonment and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition act for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine further six months simple imprisonment, all the sentences shall run concurrently. Since the aforesaid three appeals arise out of the single judgment and order, as such, they have been connected and have been heard together and a common judgment and order is being passed in the aforesaid three appeals.

(2.) Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Hari Shanker Vajpayee learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that one Chandresh Singh (P.W.-1) filed his written report (Exhibit Ka-1) on 7.3.2000, on the basis of which, chik first information report (hereinafter referred to as F.I.R.) (Exhibit Ka-20) was registered on the same day at about 8.30 A.M. stating therein that he had married his daughter Neelam (deceased) to Rakesh Bahadur Singh (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 2009) on 13.5.1993 in which he had given adequate dowry but despite the said fact the said Rakesh Bahadur Singh and his parents Tej Bahadur Singh (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2009) and mother Smt. Malti (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2009) used to treat her with cruelty with the demand of Rajdoot Motorcycle to be given as dowry. The said demand could not be fulfilled by the complainant, on account of his poor financial condition, due to which, the appellants were angered with his daughter and used to treat her with cruelty. It is a further case that on 6.3.2000, the complainant was informed that his daughter Neelam was admitted in the hospital and upon visiting her in the hospital, he found his daughter completely burnt which as per the information given by his daughter, was done by the appellants on account of the dowry. Even the two year old daughter of the deceased, Km. Saloo was also burnt to death. The appellants after admitting the deceased in the hospital allegedly ran away.