^li r i\^t 1€& m- flt- •H:<SSc. •ss :a>^(E; ^•t-,a" (1*^;B. •y.r^w :3>'&' •tQ'/.A <K (B .Ul' 0..0, ixl: . 3 n>..fe.' ^sQ'O •"..rt SM^- ffiil-f^f--' Cl'^l-i K:W>- •s'sa)'®' ^s^"^ ;cf-;:^'""W ;i-lrS;«:n>; 'o-lfi''-. ^\:?!; ill (/}0> Q) t'-'l-j O); 0> ta.'fi:?!:? d> 'WI— .a;':(u':«: ^i^. •l,in'i-''h-' ^^•fsWv^ :,^ri-l.fiSI-!i ^sii'eSIIii^; :Ss:^w BK^tnB-' s!!!^ sf»,@, ^y^yl'^i!^:' •ssxssy. tl^fn H-ST',<-r: ia...N.:.tu; •,-,gg.;,rf ; ;B;-1(I>^ :l-"<fi^'..: 'g"w: rt- ;;/, ?t> ^:.w.^ Scl;S. •tU:,1'-', l—l-'- o IBi %KI ES'iffi. ^::_::;BB fe£>;^ w"s7s www ^tr'tt^ :tf: W ' --"Bii® ·-IK.ar -F XI-HC-22 sn^i'gn h-i\<h S^V St>'>-ltc^ ^ll?ff !^jk,^^.^,_ SR®ii ?sr -yi*)idfl, riTti'y'i'c, wciwy Wl-RWgiWeR ,JSc^.A^:.!a°.|% SD^T^RITWgfN Oiyisiwi Bench! - Hon'bte Mr- L C Shadoa and Hon'ble Mr. Dhirendr-a Mishro. 5.4.2006 h\tss Saiigeeta Mishra, Mt endMr. 5hyam KOiandara', Mr. Surendrei Singh, 5rj Advocats forappeilants No.2&4 Mr. U.N.S. tleo, Swalrey, &y. 6ovt. Advocate for Oral judgmentdictated on Per L.C. Btiadoo, J: - 8y tiiis appeal uncter accused/s^iellants have jucignient of coriviction and orciej passed by ieamed Additionai 103/92, whereby leamed accuad/appelfants giiiItY for 8 of Tbe I.P.C., ^itencad eorii| imorisQnment for life and to payment of fine to furtiier uhdert quest!"or(ed f ^pifepN iin?if .^'ft'at'()SR?R 'ii'siPaqsn^f ; H. Mt Pankcy Shrivastwa, Mr. Ajay Owivedi AAotjatesfor (ypslfant No.l. Advocate with Shri Neeraj Mehta, Additi4nal Public Prosecytor with Mr. t>.IC fhe State/respondent. [OtHS, Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. the iegclity and correctness of the of sentence dated 18 Janudry, 1997 Jucfge; feaioda Ba2Qr, in 5.T. No. Sessions Judge after hdlcfing the of offence under Section 304- of the accused/(^)peltanW To undergo a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in defttuit of go RJ. fororie year: Sefesions Additilonsl coitimission Pty ['cf^iRs f0 ^ <^ ^\^ks "Lilt5r t^:^3^ uif^i^iric&Affft^^.^fa^a^-WtiA^saiuB^^^^K; i 3 XI-HC-22 snt'Bqii R-<i* ail^T sh+iicb ^f^a .£ ff- •a^ ^|A]|C|*|, vs-Awie, fawiyy Iq^w »bl'!<Id41-f'WRft' '9ft^ <pl<<l< i? artSgir sti^r . The prosecutibn case, in |>rief, neasssary for cli^osot of this appeal is that deceased SJt'a altas Veena was marrieei to accused/appellqnt No.l- Raghverjdra in -rfie mon-th, of Mny, 1987 at Oiamparan and tltereaf+er she u^ed to reside in h^c nuitrimonidl home. In •riie memingof 5.4.1991 one ^erson.eame, to Wksapw and inforraed 6'ir'dharilal Aganwal O'W-l), forthejr of cfeceased, thd* Sfta has received bum injuries Upto 80%. ,0n i^ceiying -Ais infermation, Sirdhariiaf Ag&"wcl (PW-1) along with his ^ife Sha^iikiran yW-lO) cnd brother Keshav Kumar yW-5) reoahed S^atopara. Qi r'eaching Bhate^ara they <asme to know thct Sita.aiias V^n^hfisaireidydiecSand her body is lying in the mortuar^. ^rdharilal yW-1) went to th®mortiwry, «tWthe dead body of Sita aiios Veena and ofiserved thot Sita was murctered and •ttiersaftsr die has b^m at on fii-lecrfte!" pouring kerosene on her bocly. On receiving intimation froi^i the ©ovemmentHospital, Bhatapara, the Station Houses Officer, PoiJce Station .Fldteipani pegist&red the merg int'mation No.4/91 (Ex.P-I2D. T^ieredfteir, #ie 5.D.O. (P) took up the inyesti9ation on mer9 mtimat^on No. 4/91, prepat-ed The Pandiriama (Ex.P-2) of Itis dead body 6f dec|wsed cnd recor^ed the statements of family members of deceased nam^ly Sirdharilal Agarwal (PW-1), Keshav Kumar <PW-5) & Sbashikiron (PWttO). 6ipdharilal Agarwal ffW-l) gave Q letter (Ex.P-1) m writing to Ihe p|)lice in »»h!chhe mentioned •ttict today . ot about 9.t5 <i.m. he na<eeive<^ informction that his clou9ht«r has: ['lft;^ <ri3<4- K'/ '^ -ul-°fe io- l ['^•c<i<a<i l-HC-22 "a^ ~]!'41<yt<4, •SriRFIg, ra?iray sn^iqn h-u'is sf^ StiHicft <l[?^ WW'IT*NI<=h 3D^I ^RlIWdlt^ -}• received bum injut'ies upto 80% came to know That his daughter 1fiot -rfis dead body of hfe doughjter hgis been taken ti; the mortuary for the purpose of postmortem. Aft he reached To the conciusion murdered owd thereafter sh® kerosene on her body. Therefor^, foilowing persons namely Raghvendra. husband of his dcughter, 5hn ctoughter, Vir'encira Kumar A^rwal.youhgar bro-riwr-in-taw of his daughter and motiier-in-law' of h and as •rtle mafrkqe was solemn 5tation Bhatapara registered 1ti ash, one half bumt underwear < litei- kerosene; one matdt box, pi /?~ wachine & bicycfes i.inde -Y-----—-'—— 'bllfrl.'i'l-) •WRifV 1ST3t -rfSF^R ^7 aip^i sii^i arid on reaching ptoce of eccurrence he hds atiwidy died. He was dlso informed sr seeing thedead body of his ddugh-her, thort- firstly, his daughter hos been hcs been set oh fire after pouring 'kufflar A9arwal, brother-in-lcw of his s daughter be Qrrested iHtmediatety. !-te has su^icion •Hioit the rtain cau^e of murderof h'is dcwghterwas dowry- zed by accused iSaghvendrtt (qanst the widies of his bro-tfier^. Based on above, dh 6.4.11991 1+ie Station 1-iouse Gfficer, Pofice ^ F.I.R. (Ex.P-14) under Crime No.57/91 for commission of offence ure^Br .Section 306 of -Hie I.P'.C. &uring investiyttion, the Inyestigating 4>fficer took inTo possession the copy of intend lerter (Ex.P-6) under Ex..f-3, one hdif bumt chcdcir,quarter kilo |f &on» make, one JeriaBie con-taining 2 eces bf burnt hiMrs, one chdir, soit from 1+ie place of fccurrenca and or^B pfece of burat under Ex.P-4 and pne ? 6xJ>-5. &r. KA-. Sopoawcu- ond br. P. [^ ^fo^ F" [Tit^'^ i4 [-HC-22 ^ ^J ?^'^irai?p[, B'JI'M'iS, RlCll'M1),'. sn^i'gii K;-li'* an^^l ?hT! ^fia .^.*-^ l^ 4^ .^l^'o y "f^ flimefr aiiirai 't? Mukoindon Asgistant Sui^eon? cbnducted the postmortem on t|ie body of deeea^d and prepared The postmortem rqiort- Ex.P-7. 'On doctorgave the opjnion Ex.P-8 i»t enquify hy -tlie Investigatin^ Officsr, u>hich he mentioned •riiat in hisopinjon •the mode of death is suicickil in n|aTure. Si'te plcn EX.P-IS was prepcu^d. RecovBred artjcles were sent |for examirwtion by FotiCTisic Science Laboratory. Sagar, from where relport- Ex.P-19 was rece.wed. After compfetien of inv%s|tigation, chcpge dt t WKSS filed in the Court of Judicial Ma9istrate, B4todd Bazw for commissjon of offence under Sections 306 reed with record was of the opinion that pi in the altsrnutive Se<tion 306 accused persohs and accordingi^ Tne prosecution in order chWli't'fl-f *<1*<")1' '?'feTA <R]<(K ^; srfigit sntw ?f Pmnary Mealth . Centre Bhatapara Seetion 34 of the I.P.C. against fhe aceused persons, who inlum cc|fflmittecl the case to leamed Sessions Judge, ftaipur, from where inirtierf Additionai Sessions Judge, Baioda Bazar "eceived the case oo tt'onsfe." for Trkit. Leamed Additiona! .Sessions Judge after hearing •iple respective coun,tel and perusal of 'ima-facie offence under Section 304-B >f ^he JPC was" made oyt against the ', he framed the charge against the accused for •ifie afonsadd offences. The accused/appeltaits haye abjured the guilt; To establish the charge agcunst 1he accu^d pera)ns sxamined as i^car^ as 18 wi1nes%s. Statements of accused persons were recopdedi^ider Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in which [^^fe^ [«:^q XI-HC-22 5RI^I'?iI 'f^fW.sn^i sti*licb ^rf^^ }t^ -^ w: lls^.' ; ^) Tsr'^ira?pT, 'g'^ftwHs, N"IRT^ www yiwf 200 •riie occused perspns «imittedt(iot Reghvehctra was married to Sita alias Veend in th®month of May, 19p7, however, they denied tt»ealtegations of becrting '4 demand of dow^y and further stated -rtiat they hcve impiicatetl in a faise crime. A^cused Virendt'a has statett •t+iat he, his bro^ffers and Raghvendraare re^ leanred AdditioftatSessi^riS Judge after hearing tedrned counSel for respective parties, convictej n'ehlioned in Pwa-1 of tbisjud^ in respect bf offtfnce under Sec+ion 306 of the I.P.C. We have 'neard M»ssSans|eeta MiA'n, Mr. Panitaj Shrivastoiya, Mr. Ajay Dwivedi and Mr. ^iyam K qipeldaits No.2 <& 3 and Mr. Pro«cytor wilh Mr. &.K. .&* As for as 1+ie InvotvemCT Crime under Sectiori 304-B of for accused/appellants No.2d 3 under Section 304-B of IPC <*I^T<rl4l^ '!TP^f ^ "fe%t ^-^.K , i?3lfSOT3Il^T iding sepdtwt'ety. j cmd senteneed the accused perains as iment. However, no finding was recorded Otandoni, Advocates for appeilant No.l, Mr. Sunsndra Sinah, Si». Adv. u^-th Mr. N^ny Mehta, Aclvocat'e^for the U.N.S. Deo, leamed Additionai Public ^lrey, Pcinel Lawyer on behatf of the State/reipondent. ~ "Tne qiiestion regarciOTg ^ieoith of cfeceased Srfa ctias Veena on account of extensive burh injur^s is not in dispute. I- pf accused/flppeltcints in commfaion of EPC is concemed, learwed Sr. Advoca+e largued t+iat in order to es'tablidt ehnrge •rtie prosecutfon has excmined PW-1 [^^fisA [^•^fa^ -4- XI-HC-22 r^^ 'Svf^WSV, ^W , hwwy, Sil^rq^ K-u'h -an^i 9ffl ^^l 3c *y f4^1 [^'t '•Cl'tn .'-\J^':Q ^^•v- 6irdharailaJ 'Agarwcl, fdrAer of cl^<»ased; PW-5 Keshav !&jnwr, uncle of decedsed d PW-10 Siashikircn, irjother o'f deeeosed dnd from perusal of < '• ' • ' 1:.. " ' l ••' • • • .'. .•'•'• '• . . . their evidence, it is clear that jfhe pro»cution has not b®enable to es+nbiish the fact tiiat deeet>secl was subjected td cruelty _or harassmen? by the accused pers dowry soon before her death. Th^srefore, the fmding of the trial coiirt is not ba^d on any iegal eyidenc^ wrongiyconyictedfor'rtiesaidof'flence. On the other hand, leamec| 304-8 of the IPC.the death of a bodily injury or pccurs otherwise seveh years of her marriay and she was aibjected to-cruehy o rtelatiye of her husband for, or in the dowry death of a before her death such a&. * 1^I<ri4i< '^lTH^f "^, f^%t •t.fal^i< '^3lf:OT3iltn |»hs in connection wfrti any demcnd for <aid the accused persons have been Addi. Pubiic Prosecutor'alongwith t?y. i5ovt. Advocate for the Ptate.su^ported the judgment pf triai court. In order to bring the offe^iee within -fhe four comer's of Section uioman must be caysed by any oums or ti+ian under normal circumstances wiltiin |t is shown that soon before her deattl ^ harassment by her husb<md or any ^onrBction with,any<len'iandfordowry, sucl'l death Aail fae ^aited "dowr'l' ^eccW, ancl such husboniel or retatiye 'shall bedeemed to have eeused he|r death, Section 113-B of +he Eviden|ce Act, 1872 enwsages •that: " When the questioh i^s rtAiether a person has committed womcn and it is shown 1hat soon woman had been ajbjected by such ['^'^fe^ L.-:-. [«:^w XI-HC-22 sn^isii K-v.* sf^ Sfitii'^ ^f^ ^^ <p ^'- ^ ^/^r^^><a "^' Hr 's^i ^rpTR^T, ^Til'y'itB, 'fa^i-Hy wi?(r<aRwqi I^E^W" 3TI^?I'SSIIWglt?! -^ person to cruelty or with, ony cfemwd for^ gjch person had causs^ pfQsecution in order to ascertain ^l^^l ^iq'C'ff'^ f^l^i <^!'(^t< qr aifigii.sn^T horassment for, or in Gonnsction owry, the Court shallprffsume that the dowry decrth." Now We shafl proceed to ^crutinize the evidence adduced by the as to whether the prosecution has been abie to sdtisfy the oboiw requir^mentsof Ssction 304-B of the IPC by adducing evidenceon rscord. The question of death of ^eceaseid w'rthm a vperwd of sewn ywsrs from the date of her marriage te that deceased was married witf) month of Moy,. 1987 anci die Se^ on account of extensiye ^ir-n injuries ../.'• • . • • • on 5.4.1991. From •rtie evidenc^ it ts ateo establi^Ted Thar Sita attes Veena re<aivecl bum injuries in inside and -tiie body of deoeased dopr. came seying -ihat there is a fir®, Rcghyendro wns burning In •rfie g riot in dispute, as it isdn admitted foct CKCu^d/qipeilant No.l Raghvendrc in her bedroom, which was bolted from was •teken out after breaking open •trie . PW-2 Lckshman has state^ that at cdbout 7-8 a.m. in the moming he was Sfttina in his shop, af th4it timeShivkumar's wife & Bijou Rcwat on which he niAed towards •the house of Rflghvendra, nuniber of pei^sons wene standing thene. Wi'fe of •ound ftoor room and the door of roora wos clo^ed from the inside. 1-te ^rote open the door wfth a pichtixe and 4 [^^ ^Ra^ [TS^;^fe-q XI-HC-22 SIT^I^iI h-t\* si^v S^tff^ -Hl^TT i^jgf^H ^1:J.1~^ tCs^ ^\Jaha "(."'r "TST '^nqRPI, 0TJ1yi|(o, fs|(1W^< WHC1T giW°S saw that wife of Rcighvendra Wa^ buming, at that time ftaghyendr-a was at his diop, wherros Shivkumar ths houss. They extinguished th|e -fire, +hereafter the accused persons came, and they took the deceas4d to Bhatapar'a hospi-tal. Simihr is the evi'dence of PW-3 Bijau Rawat. Therefore. from the obo deceased herseif Set her on fire ^fter pouring kero^ne on her body. Now the question remcuns ^sto w^iether the pro^cution has bwn able to establi^t that •the accus^d personiB aibjectcd Sito aiias Vcena to cruelty or harassment soon.. be1|ope •i+ie date of ihddent jn connectiori wiA +he elemmd bfdowry. PW-1 ©irdhariialAgiirwat, rscsiv'mg infortnatioh he raache^ morried wi"t+i ftaghvendra on 28 On which he repljed that if his qi|^I<T)41l TiTO^f ^ f^l^t <Pn+^K ^r srpBii aii^i Virenclrawew jn tbe kitchen garden of 'e evidence it stflnds estabtiAed •that Ifather of deceased.hos istated thnt on to Bi'ictofKSv. and thereafter he went to the mortuary. He lodged th^ report Ex.P-lin the police stdion.-In Paro-4 of eyidence, this witne^s has • stated thfft' Veena was to be 2.1987, but on account of denwhd of dowry marpiage could not be s^iemnized. Again in +he month of JiAoy, 1987 occused Raghvendro ait atoi^e catae to himandsaid ihat hs is ready for marriage on cny terms and eijen heis ready to mapry Sita in a temple, fothers ape ready •i+ien & then only he wiit mcrry 5ita with him. Therea|fter, elder brother of ftaghvenclrc osune to Siitaspur cnd gme his' cons^n* re9anlin9 marricge of Veena with [4%:^5in « XI-HC-22 an^i^ir K;-ii<* sn^T ?h-)-iicr> ^ff$fl ?Sf •<ll<<K'14i,;®t]|'M'l<c,T«Rira'g< w*rpffaHi<*i Raghy^ndni ctottrv Ra9hvendra. l-1e also snfel that the marr'iage, then he, being t^ thcrt Veena is married to engaged Veienaw'rth B'aghvenelra) Raghvendrd at Chcmparan, she and in between she came 5-6 was r'esiding Jn the matrimonia| yeenc. Agoin he scid that at Th{ bicyctes will be 9iven in •rtie cnd Rs.2,500/- in iieu of four bi| to enofele Raghvendrg to ®arri Furriier-, he has stdted that 3 times and she wos made to second time die came with Raghwendra came following his members of her matpimonial h< account -riiat her four Raghvendro said her daughter pepsuaded Raghvendra not to te|l examination, this witness has ijit wife was no* at. the rssidencle communicated by •the cieceased tihtes monims ^l^fo^l 1 "RPraT ^ f^St if^l^R q? srf'tfT an^Rr ^f other bro+hers will not pdrtrcipate in }e elder brother of Raghvendra, ensure y^ndra. 'The etde'r brother of Raghvsndro af'ter 4-5 <joys Veena was nutrriecl wi-th |started living in her matrimonia! house to hishouse.In *vhat condition she house, he did not talk about thdt to i^ time of nsarrioge it was agreed Thct 10 >tj>ry <xnd accordingly, he gave six bicycles i^cles. Bicycles were demanded in order his livelihood, as he was Unemployecl, persons had beaten his daughter 2- (Kiwy. firsT time she came all dione, lone Patel ond •third time broltier of ejaughter. His etaughter informed him that., tuse have beutsn her euid syen-once on pregndncy UMS ter-minaizd. Once prosTftute in his prssencs, on which he Ik tike this-in front of him. In the cross- ijitttted ftat at the time of marnage his ^e. most of the happeningis were being tto her mother and in tum his wife useci accbsed rtin [TTteTif^ ^f K< tCtV^ ^-ots •-l^--'- [^•^fe^ I-HC-22 D% ~5^l •^Wlvl^, 'S^PTS, P^m-H'y. wiRwgitira? sn^rqii l<-fi+ 311^1 ^-llcti W^ +,l<ltcf-fl-< •qilRff'? l^zt^tN^R ^TsiSgiisii^i to tell him.Me also used +o tefl <d 1 +hings to h»s wife, wdiich were being communioited to him by hi's daught^r. There is not an iota of Syi dlence, in the above 6viderK»of PW-! Sirdharilal A9aruK»( regahdmg ttem4ncl of ciou'ry by accused persons soon t . • ' I "•'.'• . - • •' . • . • before the dateof incident i.e. 5.^.1991 and -Aat Sita was subjected to cnieity or hcrassment in connewt| on with demand of dowrv. Whatever < has been stateci tiiat r^iates to If^e year 1987 and for that aiso it seems Ihat bicyctes were given in order his livelihood by runnwig the cycle of deceased snd brotiier of PVU giving of faicyctes at the time of year 1987 i.e. 4 y&irs faefore •Ae dtite of incident, to ensure That Raghwndra coutd ecm shbp. Even PW-5 Kerfiav Kumar, uncto -1 ©ridhapilal,has not stated in his eyidenee that any demand of dowlyy was made by the accused persons soon befoi^ the death of Sita aiu|s Veena. i-ie has ajso stated regnrding ^arriage, whsch was solemnizsd in 1+ie PVv'.lO ShaAikiran Agoirwal| that one morrth befors 1tie incklel her residence, ct that time her dai) harassina, tiiey ore demanding co^ has stated in para-3 of her evidence ft ttiere was a»me Puja eeremony at ighter came to Bita^iur. She ciisciosed her.tfiot in the nct?ie of dowry wh|Bie fflmjiy members of her i'n-laws are lour television, scoote^ gold & silver (. omaments and gas-stove, -rtiey ate beating'her, not providing food & clothes to her and on mclny occcjsions •they had ouslsd her frorn the. house. She has olreeuiy purchased teteyision <md gas stbve to give the in- [Tft^ ^R^ ..<• t^ -•. ^ •^ '^/'i.^ !S~ .<a [^-^3^ y. <?a^.®ji] '.^a^^] 04. au»3!B>lpuaAt(6og nw^-ui-uos Sllj aai^aiAa iimp uat) ^ad so '>iaAoa4oy(f •X^Mop 34<. p^iuwusp oij» uosjsd 4.0U soij aip +n<} '^Mop 6uipuoiuap a.ia^ nt.ig ^o sMOj-yi 401114.uauia+D4.s snqiuuio USAIO soi| at|S' 'aguiost.su; +S.UJ. 9^. w yoi^. suosoai 31(4. •lo^'+.inos •avft ^o swi^fi^uo') a,si6sw +ou saop (QT- 'uiMi>j!tjsi>ilS Ol'Md ^" ssuapiAS aAoqo ^ •jaip.a6o+ .(-usw Mq-Ui-uos pi^o jaj.tjSnpp jai^ xaTnd ^o uoi+^diuos ja<401 puo ^no'4 •iai| 04. SUIK? UIDSD 3(4 -UI-UOSSjt) SOaOl|M 'SAOp 5 JO^ p3/Oi(.S . 4t.dq Aw|-ut-uos ^ ja4,ij6niqs ^s^ 'asnoq +uapf3Ui 341, a<oiaq i^.upw suo t0tj+ p|3+ii|.s sou sus uoi+Duiuroxa-ssojs 91(4, -^o H-O.IBJU]; •s6uitj4 SAoqBai^ p^o|ssip sip 't|4,o®pJSt| j.o 4j.uoui auo aioj.aq 4snfpuoij34. 04. pasn aijs us)^ jstj iuoi!y aiinbua o+pasn'Aai{{. uaijM Woj^ >iat| tuo.1^ SuiA.iasqo ^a^fo y ^s/>au stjs 'puoqsntj js!.j s^jopa^ddo 04. | ai.cp aiiy. ufcw^ sjoaX ^ ^.o poMad »uii^! umGo soif avfe 'aouapjAs jaij j.o 9-tMpd i^ •36014^0111 puosias aCuaijo ||t Aaijj. 4.01)4. ADS o»pasn j|o >)04$y ^o a^iM oijM'ouaag )|otj?v 'cupuaAij&Bg 'AIIJS pa4n»y ••ia(.u6nop •laij 04. uaAifi osjo sHdt ujoip uap[o6 USAS puD uaAifi XpDa.J) p|o6 iu6 ^ 3uo 'p(jtp j.o 4.9>|30| uap|o6 '4s|6uoq jaA|is '[^oaid auo 'suiqwui <> .' • . . -• • . • . ' • •' BUIM^ auo 'ssy/Aa Qf -vo^ p4D+s ^st|+d^ sot| 31)5 •.<94;i|6rapp d9t| ^o SMD] 1^!»htyio tb >!?ttoj> (;>'2J j* ;UWb l.lh.Ujbilt. oasnasD 3144. psuiou A||o3ij.p3(k /^(j) UO>lj5|!4SOlg p S3U^>jASSt{j: t)4. azjutj.russ A|asoi9 am ^.j •sAop 6 joj. pa/D+s +ou PDI( mD| [aj.i|bnDp J3|-( •asnoij .ot) o+ aiUBa jaij ui pauuo^ad 6uiaq SSM tri'nd q 'umo d»t|uo 6u;i|4.Auo paso|3S|p Msn ua4.L|6nop.is^j ••aGajjsws 10 M paip da+qBnisp 43ij'+oi(i. pa(.n(s pypD|!i4!.!W •'at.sts 'AIIJS j.o S.^.IM si o ajam Suu pjo6 auo puo BAipM!?] tblhttS lUhlh ^l.-0^ 1. C) <°''->'[.t>??i -">-" \.f]e- • ^fl> <> ' ; ca]»ihlhlB B^lte t'^y I* I|S^IB> ^H.ltotej '°>l>H.(fee 'fcBlbltei&E. ZZ-3H-IX .XI-HC-22' 311^1 ^[ M.4] sns?( •STqWdfe ^7"\ ''"* ^M-0 'o V ?^^IF!RPf,.'3TfrHIre, («l<yll*1*l< flwgiwn^ her house at the time of Pu.ja, b|ut she has not stated tkcthetlemondecl these items in dowry dt that tiirje w any o'rtier time. As per evidence of PW-1 ©irdharilgliri para-7 both husbcnd & wifs used +o exchange talks i^9ar(iin9 •rtiin9s which uwr®co^nmunicateel by •rtieir' daugh'ter either to fcther or mother, "therefore, if Puja i.e. one mon-th befoK-the communica-ted each other euid feuch g demand was roised at the time of date of incicfent; then they must ha»» even PW-10 said;to have purchnsed teie'/ision end ,gas stove, then sl|ie must have communicated the same to her husband Sirdharilal, but whi|egivin9 complaint Ex.P-1 to the Station House Offker, Police Statiort in natupat coyrse •riie fal+ier o'fl been mentioned tha+ main.ccu^ one month before the death o1I i •^pifera^f tiWdl' '4 fsTA (fa<zit : ir aifSgqsiR^i Bhataparo, thes® thJngs were- hot mentioned by ©irclharitalin 'tiie e^fflplcint. Had these demands were macte by the accu^d persons, as has i^een'stated by PW-10 Shffidiikinun, •then detaa^d bught to have rtienttoned ali •riisse •t+iings in •the complunt ExjP-1. Perusa! of complaint Ex.P-1 made by the fa'ther of deceased shows -^hat he ratsed doubt that his daughter has b^n murdered amd everr in p^huttimate paragraph of compkiint it has of mur-der of her dau9hter- uias douiry cOTd as the marriege was solemni^ied by fcaghvendra against Ifie wishes of hia bro-riiers. But the'1-hings wh|ch hdve been nwntioned by Sh<^iikira»i PW-IQ !n her evidence hasnot bi|Kn mentiohed in the complcunt •t+>at just Sitaalins Veena, there was ademond from fhe side of accused perso^s regarciing television^^scoo-ter. 9py & [^^f^ • [^^TO^ .^S(<uara"!R... XI-HC-22 2). •TSf "^PIRPI, -g'?ftgTIS,.'f^TB3< •A:'^ •6" S?'\M liF'' an^i^i ^;IT3?31I^r ^i^ <i[s<i "R^--vofe IWffHTWdR) sitver omaments flOTd gos sto harossment cnd beating given dsceased, but same connot be at^ributed to •ths demand of dowry. From •i+ie evidence it eon be inferred The house but aime wasnot on aj no questiwi of demand of dowry,. d PW-5 Ke^iav Kumar, uncle of 1+seir evidence "egcrding c!emc8i<| <jtoceased. Even though the lean^ad tr-ial court has r-ejected the evidence of PW-2 Lakshman di PW-3 ^isjou pn ttie ground that •they are interested in the accused party Laxshmanis nedr to the house of workjngat/ltieir residence. But, they ore indeCendent witnesses cannot be said that inany woy suid wife of ftaghvendra oftenly u: occcsions die wme pn the roia unusuat manner. t 'l. •*l''<fc1<i1-l t^lldl 4 fs<3t ^fa<<l< ^ 3lPtW 3I!^[ /e. Assuming that thsre wns some by the accused Raghvendra to the that there used to be some quori'el in icount of demand of dowry. There wcs as PW-1 Sirdharilal, fcrther of deceased cteceased, have not stated dnyriiihg in of dowry soon before the ctec'th of in yiew of the faet thdtAop of PW-2 accused persons and Bisjtu (PW-3) imis we are of the considered <q»iBion that and at ieast about PW-2 Lakshman it he was infiuehced or was under the inftuence of 1+ie accused perso^s. PW-2 iri his cposs-examinntign, has stated -rtiat Raghviendna uias resicjing sepce^itely frdm his famiiy membet's ^ed to behcve like amad person. On 2-3 ^ wfrti disheveled hairs & unBB-ranged clothes and yitlagersysed to bnn|g her back in the house. Simjkn' is tfie evidence of PW-3 Bijcu Ihat tfie !J»ifeof Roghvendra used to behfflve; m cn [Tft^ ^f<a^t [^•^^ XI-HC-22 3(^1 WI R'ti.d) sn^r ?b^(^ ^Tt Kaavm/- :>-/' • f '.-y!a »meKu.^ •s^ ^irai?pi, ^swss; wfpfrwnra? T1iier®fore,for Ihe^forsg^ing r^asons, we ore of tise considered opinion that the prosecution hos aaAicing lega! clinching evitfance In the result, liie eppeaj «t>i<<i!"i4l-i tiiycjf'? 'fe^t.Ti^RZR ^Slf'OTSK^I not been abte to estoblidi the offance against -the occussd persons ui^der SecHon 304-B of the I.P.C. by anei as sueh, •riie findinQ of th^ trial court conyicthig The accysed per^ons under SecTton 304-B of tiie I.P.C. txyinoi be-.sustdinsd wndsanw is l^ible to beset aside. ^?f -th®<welI<Bits^ aicceeds, Convtetion and ^ntence imposed on ihe cyjieildnTs Raghyendra, yirendra Kumar <S Shiykumat' are hensb'y set asjcl®and they flff'®acquittect of tha charge under 5ection 304-8 of -itie JPC}. Aecused/appeliant No. 1-Reghvendra. iKrfio is, in eustody since 18.1.199)7, be set at liberty for-riiwilh; if net requ>red'in connection wjl+t any oWner case. Wheneas, Accuserf/appetlont No.2-Virendro Kumqr & accused/c^ppeflant No.S-.aiwkumap cra already on baii, therefore, •itieir bnil bonds ar^t dischar9e. &rtifiedcopyasper rules.j Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge -'\ 9S [T^'^fisA Kt •i;'; aii