Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly & Anr vs State Of U.P

The facts of the case are that Geeta (deceased) was 1 married to the appellant No. 1 Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly on 9th December 1997. On 03.11.2000 an FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased Surya Kant Dixit alleging that dowry was being demanded from him and the accused was insisting that a Maruti car be part of the dowry. He further stated that three months before the date of the incident the first informant along with his relative went to the house of the accused and explained his financial difficulty in giving the Maruti car to the accused but they were insulted by the accused and were told to get out.

On 03.11.2000 at about 12 noon the first informant received information on telephone that his daughter had died. The FIR was lodged as stated above and after investigation a charge sheet was filed. The appellants - the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased - were acquitted by the trial court but the High Court convicted them under Sections 304B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded life sentence under Section 304B IPC, 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A, and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences were to run concurrently.

The deceased was aged about 24 years and about = day had passed since she died when post mortem was done. She was of average build. Eyes and mouth were partly open. Tongue was between the teeth. The body had pugilistic appearance. Smell of kerosene was present. Rigor mortis was also present. There was a half burnt cloth around the neck with knot half burnt. Half burnt bed sheet and other clothes as also a half burnt wire mingled with burnt clothes were found. A burnt cordless phone was also found.

At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 was the father of the deceased and maker of the F.I.R. who as well as his relative Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 gave evidence about the demand of Maruti Car by the accused respondents since after six months of marriage and about the demand of Maruti Car being repeated and pressed by both the accused, when both of them had gone to the Sasural of the deceased and had been turned out by the two accused after being insulted on their expressing inability to meet the demand of a Maruti Car. Dr. R.K. Singh PW 3 stated that he was included in the panel of doctors conducting the autopsy on the dead body of 5 the deceased and he proved the post mortem report. Head Constable Mohar Pal Singh PW 4 had scribed the check report on the basis of the FIR lodged by Surya Kant Dixit PW 1. Shir Bahadur Singh PW 5, Tehsildar of Tehsil Farrukhabad prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased and other related papers. S.I. Ghanshyam Gaur PW 6 had collected bloodstains etc., from the spot at the instance of Shiv Bahadur Singh PW 5 and Circle Officer D.P.N. Pandey PW 7 was Investigating Officer of the case. The defence also examined three witnesses. Vidushi Tiwari DW 1 was the real sister of the husband of the deceased. Devendra Misra DW 2 and Sushil Kumar Misra DW 3 were non-family members of the two accused.

As generally happens in a crime of dowry death, this case is also based on circumstantial evidence. As regards ingredients No. 1 and 2 of a crime of dowry death detailed above, it is an admitted fact that the deceased Geeta died otherwise than in normal circumstances vide her post mortem report and that the death had occurred within seven years of her marriage in her Sasural in the bedroom. As per the prosecution case, she had been married to the accused respondent No. 1- Satya Narain Tewari alias Jolly about three years before this incident occurring on 3.11.2000. Even Vidushi Tiwari DW 1, sister of the husband of the deceased in paragraph 2 of her statement said that the deceased Geeta was married to her brother Satya Narain Tiwari alias Jolly on 9.12.1997. Thus, her unnatural death in her Sasural occurred within three years of her marriage. 7 As regards ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5, the relevant testimony is contained in the statement of the deceasd's father Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 (son- in law of Bua of Surya Kant). Both of them have deposed about the persistent demand of Maruti Car in dowry by the accused persons (husband and mother-in-law of the deceased) since after six months of the marriage and harassment/maltreatment of the deceased over the score of non-fulfilment of the said demand. The gist of the testimony of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 was that he had performed a decent marriage spending Rs. 4 Lacs giving household goods in dowry but after six months of the marriage, the two accused started torturing his daughter Geeta pressing for the demand of a Maruti Car. On her visits to her parental house, she (deceased) used to narrate to him (this witness) her torture and maltreatment. She had also informed him in this behalf on telephone. About three months before the incident, he and Jaideo Awasthi had gone to Geeta's Sasural at Farrukhabad on getting message from Geeta about the atrocities of the two accused heaped upon her rendering her life miserable because of non-fulfilment of the demand of Maruti Car. Both the accused were there at their home at Farrukhabad and repeated the demand of Maruti car. On his expressing inability to meet this demand, he and Jaideo Awasthi were 8 insulted and humiliated and turned out of the house. Both the accused told them not to visit their house again without meeting their demand of a Maruti Car. Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 then went to Geeeta's father-in-law at the place of his employment-State Bank because he was a gentleman. He apprised him of the conduct of his wife and son (accused) pressing the demand of Maruti Car. He, however, offered consolation, Geeta, daughter of Surya Kant Dixit DW 1, also advised him not to take any action and he went away. The victim might have thought that making of FIR by her father at that juncture would ruin her matrimonial life and so she advised him not to take any legal step at that time.

To sum up, the prosecution has been able to prove the following :

As a result of the above discussion, this Appeal is 28 dismissed accordingly.

On 27.10.2005 this Court had granted bail to the appellants. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out remaining period of sentence.

Application for impleadment is allowed.