1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2008 Kundan Singh, S/o Pan Singh R/o Village Byati, Patti Kshtra Tripuradevi Tehsil Berinag, District Pithoragarh …..…Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……….Opposite Party Shri M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Deepak Bisht, Advocate, present for the appellant. Shri Amit Bhatt, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Oral: Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant,J. This appeal, preferred under section 374 of code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial no. 52 of 2005, whereby said court has convicted accused / appellant Kundan Singh under section 304, 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC), and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 2 1961. The appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years, and also directed to pay fine of `20,,000/- under section 304B IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years, and directed to pay fine of `10,,000/- under section 498A IPC. The convict has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution Story, in brief is that , appellant Kundan Singh got married to Reena @ Renu (deceased) on 13.05.2004. She used to live with her husband, and in-laws in Village Berigaon, Patti Sildon, Tehsil Berinag, District Pithoragarh. On 06.08.2005, three persons from said village (Vyati) came, and informed P.W.1 Diwan Singh (father of the deceased) that Reena @ Renu has committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself. On this, the relatives of the parental side of the deceased went to village Berigaon. Thereafter, P.W. 1 Diwan Singh gave First Information Report (Ex. A1) to Patti Patwari Tripuradevi, alleging that accused Kundan 3 Singh, and his relatives have committed dowry death. (In Uttarakhand , in certain hill area Revenue Officers have been given police powers). It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant Kundan Singh, and his parents used to make demand of dowry of `70,,000/- and on its non fulfillment deceased was subjected to cruelty. On the basis of aforesaid report crime no. 1 of 2005, was registered by the Patwari of the area against accused Kundan Singh, his mother and his sister-in-law. The crime was initially investigated by Patwari, and later handed over to Circle Officer B.R. Arya (P.W.8) of regular police. Dead body of deceased was taken into possession on 06.08.2005, and inquest report (Ex. A4) was prepared by Naib Tehsildar. He also got prepared other necessary papers like police form no. 13 (Ex. A5), sketch of dead body (Ex. A6) etc., and got sent the dead body of Reena @ Renu for post-mortem examination. P.W. 6 Dr. Mahaveer Singh conducted post-mortem examination on 07.08.2005, on the body of Renu and prepared autopsy report (Ex.A10). He recorded mixed burn (superficial, and sub cutaneous deep) injuries present all over the body except soles of feet. The Medical Officer opined that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries. 4 The Investigating Officer, after interrogating the witnesses, and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex. A15) against the accused/appellant Kundan Singh, his mother Bhagwati Devi and his sister-in-law Kamla Devi (JETHANI of the deceased) for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 304B, 498A IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 4. The Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragath, on 12.01.2006, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under section 498A, 304B IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, not only against the accused/appellant Kundan Singh but also against Bhagwati Devi and Kamla Devi. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Diwan Singh (father of the deceased), P.W.2 Anandi (mother of the deceased), P.W. 3 Bishan Singh (uncle of the deceased), P.W. 4 Kishan Singh, P.W.4 Devendra Singh Martoliya (who registered the 5 crime, and prepared check report on the basis of FIR), P.W.6 Dr. Mahaveer Singh (who conducted post-mortem examination), P.W.7 S.I. Vijay Pal Gautam, and P.W.8 Circle Officer, B.R. Arya (who completed investigation and submitted charge sheet). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he admitted that deceased was his wife. It is also admitted by him that his wife died unnatural death. However, he denied the evidence relating to demand of dowry and harassment. No evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court found that prosecution could not prove charge against Bhagwati Devi and Kamla Devi and acquitted them but held that the charge stood proved against accused Kundan Singh (present appellant). Accordingly, he was convicted under section 498A, 304B IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After hearing on sentence, the trial court sentenced the convict to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years under section 304 B IPC, and directed him to pay fine of `20,000/-. The convict was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and directed to pay fine of `10,,000/- under section 498A IPC. He was further sentenced to rigorous 6 imprisonment for a period of one year under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 05.03.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 2005, this appeal is filed by the convict. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is in jail for last more than six years. It is further submitted that the appellant does not want to press the appeal on the point of conviction. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court under section 304B IPC, be reduced to the period of seven years which is minimum sentence prescribed under said section. It is further submitted that trial court has given harsh sentence on each count. It is pleaded that appellant Kundan Singh is a poor villager. As to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is pointed out that it is nowhere proved on the record that appellant killed the deceased. What is proved is that she died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Attention of this Court is drawn to the fact that deceased was suffering from Jaundice and leukorrhea and she was fed-up with her illness due to which she committed suicide. However, the trial 7 court record shows that the parents of the deceased gave the evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty before her death. 6. In the above circumstances, without interfering with the conviction of the trial, we think it just and proper to reduce the sentence awarded by the trial court. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, so far it relates to the conviction of the appellant Kundan Singh in respect of charge of offences punishable under section 498A, 304B IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the same is affirmed. However, considering the above facts and circumstances, sentence awarded by the trial court is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and fine of `5,000/- under section 304B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and fine of `1,000/- under section 498A IPC. The sentence awarded under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is not interfered with. All the three sentences shall run concurrently. In default of payment of fine directed to be paid under section 304B IPC, the appellant shall undergo further six months 8 imprisonment. In default of payment of fine directed to be paid by this Court under section 498A IPC, the appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of the jail concerned. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 22.07.2011 Parul