DHARMENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel to the accused appellants submitted that instead of arguing on bail application, he will argue on merits of appeal itself to which the learned A.G.A. has agreed. Hence, heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) Both the criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment, hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The prosecution version is that a first information report was registered in respect of a criminal incident and it was stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased Manisha was married with Dharmendra according to Hindu Rights and Rituals. The husband and the other relatives were not happy with the dowry and they demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs and a motorcycle as additional dowry. They used to harass Manisha and she was not given food and was being threatened by the accused persons that if the additional dowry is not given, they will kill her. On 09.09.2016, at about 04:00 PM, one neighbour of the deceased informed that the deceased has been hanged by the accused persons. When the informant reached there, he saw Manisha hanging on ceiling fan and the accused persons were absconding from the house. The dead body was taken into custody by the police and was sent for post-mortem and after investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, charges were framed by the learned trial court for the offence under section 304-B and in the alternative under section 302 I.P.C., 498-A I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.