BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND

SESSIONS JJUDGE COURT, COURT NO.5 SITAPUR

PRESENT SHRI MAHINDER SINGH( H.J.S)

SESSIONS TRIAL NO.686/08

State Applicant

Versus

Dinesh Kumar son of Shri Tulsi Ram resident of village

Nakrahiya Police station Imliya Sultanpur District Sitapur.

Accused

Case no. 591/07

Under Section 496 A/304 B, 201 IPC part 4,
D.P. Act
Police station Imliya Susltanpur
District Sitapur

Judgment

The accused Dinesh Kumar was charged in under

Section 498A-304 B, 201 IPC and Section 4 Dowry

Prohibition Act, Police Station Imliya Susltanpur District

Sitapur and he was prosecuted.

According to Written tehrir Exb A1 the complainant

Manohar Lal under section 156(3) Cr.PC. before the court of

J.M Second Sita pur submitted application on this ground

that the complainant daughter Gaeta Chaudhury was

married with Dinesh Kumhar son of Shri Tulsi Ram resident

of Nakrahiya Police station Imliya Susltanpur District Sita pur

on 13.2.2006 according to Hindu rites and rituals. In the

marriage given Rs.1,40,000 cash and given the items of the

same amount. The complainant daughter on going to the

house of Dinesh, her father in law, Tulsi Ram, mother in law

Smt. And Mukesh Shyam and Guddu start taunted to the

daughter of the complainant to bring less dowry in the

marriage. In this regard the daughter of the complainant

phone call to me and call and my family member went to

matrimonial house of my daughter Geeta Chaudhury, they

call with them, the entire make the demand of Maruti Car in

dowry, on which I shown my inability to give the same . The

entire person told to arrange Rs. 1 lac and they also threated

that in case you did not pay the said amount they will

committed the murder of your daughter. I and my family

members were afraid and by giving Rs. 50,000, we have

cooperated them to purchase second hand Maruti Car. So

that the life of my daughter can be save, some days the

matter was calm. On 25.6.2007 there was the function to be

solemnized entrance in house at Sunder Nagar. Then my son

in law from the same car bring my daughter Geeta

Chaudhury and my daughter narrated the entire fact that

for taking the new Maruti car demanding rupees in dowry

by Dinesh, Tulsi Ram, Mukesh Guddu and Shyam and

mother in law. I assured to talk after admission in the house,

which after the competition of Grah Parvesh ceremony, later

on talk with them and make compromise. On the second day

26.6.2007 time about 3.00 o clocks Dinesh Kumar instigate

to send them back and my wife immediately see of them. On

the assurance that we will talk later on in regard to dowry

and we see off them. But Dinesh after going to house, he

had very much beaten to my daughter and Guddu, Mukesh,

Tulsi Ram and mother in law and Shyam also beaten to my

daughter and trying to give the shape of commission of

suicide they have hanged my daughter on the roof and lock

the room interlock and at 6.00 clock given the information

on phone that your daughter has committed the suicide and

on this I and my whole family and relative reach on the spot,

in the room get open the interlock, the complainant become

unconscious, my entire family members were shocked, on

which earlier present unsocial element persons and the

above persons have threatened, as we say you are doing the

same, in case you said any thing before the police, we shall

also committed the similar murder of your sons and they

also said to signed on plain paper, on which we entire

persons have signed our signature due to fear. After the

incident we have seen that there were injuries on the body

of the girl, after cremation of his last ceremony and other

person reach in the house in very unconscious condition, the

matter is of the dowry murder, in such circumstances the

murderer of my daughter be punished. The complainant

through police superintendent given application to SHO PS

Imliya, from which the PRO of Indian Minister Shri Vinod

Chaudhury threated to the complainant Bahanji directed to

lodge the report. The accused persons have given

subscription in party fund. Therefore the report cannot be

lodged, the same was informed through fats, and the report

was not lodged. In this manner lodge the report of the

complainant and get fair enquiry and prayed to initiate

proceeding to punish them. On the order of the court the

case was registered against the accused persons. After

interrogation the charge sheet has been framed against the

accused.

The necessary format copies were issued to the

accused. Thereafter the subordinate court Chief Judicial

Magistrate Sitapur vides his order DT 29.7.2008 dispatch the

above case to Sessions Court.

The above session trial case was transferred on

26.10.2009 and received for trial to this court.

Against the accused framed charges under section

498A, 304 B, 201 IPC and under section 4 Dowry Prohibition

Act. The accused have denied from the commission of

offence and demand for trial.

 The prosecution to prove the charges examined PW 1

Manohar, PW 2 Saroj Kumar, PW 3, Inder Partap Chaudhury,

PW 4 Mansa Ram, PW 5 Constable Mesh Pal and PW 6

Karnakar Rao Circle officer and concluded their evidence.

The accused statement were recorded under section 313

Cr.P.C. in which he has admitted to solemnize his marriage

with deceased Geeta Chaudhury on 13.2.2006 and depose

that the deceased due to jealously and intentionally

committed suicide and the last ceremony of the deceased,

the family members were present and with their consent the

last ceremony was committed with their consent. The

complainant submitted the application under section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. by altering the facts and the information has been

submitted in delay, the investigation is conducted polluted

and the report is submitted in wrong manner. The accused in

his statement depose that the witnesses depose the

evidence due to enmity and he also depose that the time of

marriage and death is correct but Geeta Chaudhury due

malicious with and emotion committed the suicide. I forcibly

took Geeta Chaudhury from her parents’ house. Where all

the relatives were present. The accused was ever having

sweet relations with the deceased but the commission of

suicide but the deceased was bad luck. The accused in his

defense examined DW 1 Dharam Raj DW 2 Jagdish.

I have heard the argument of learned counsel of accused

and prosecution learned counsel Assistant District

Government counsel and also carefully examine the evidence

available on the file.

On the accused it is charge under section 498A, 201

IPC and section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and the prosecution

to prove the above charges prosecution examine PW 1, 2, 3,

4, &5.PW 1 Manohar the complainant of the case/ father of

deceased Geeta Chaudhury and he depose in his oral

evidence that the complainant solemnize the marriage of his

daughter Geeta Chaudhury on 13.2.2006 with Dinesh Kumar

and in the marriage given Rs. One lac forty thousand and

same amount was given article in the marriage as gift and

see off his daughter. The girl stayed at her matrimonial

house for 10-12 days, during this period my daughter told

that her husband Dinesh Kumar, father in law Tulsi Ram,

mother in law Smt., girl brother in law Mukesh Kumar,

brother in law Guddu are taunting for bring less dowry and

on this information I and my wife and 2-3 person went to

the matrimonial house of Gaeta, the above accused persons

demanded Maruti car from us in dowry and I shown my

inability to give the same, on this the accused person said in

case case you will not give us Maruti car, we will kill your

daughter. On this I make the arrangement OF Rs. 50,000

and cooperated those to purchase second hand Maruti car

and thereafter for some days the matter was calm. The

complainant also deposes this statement that my house

which was situated at Nepalpur, its Grah Parvesh ceremony

was to be solemnized on 25.6.2007. In the function of this

Grah Parvesh my son in law Dinesh Kumar and my daughter

Geeta Chaudhury came in the same Maruti car and

thereafter Geeta Chaudhury told to the complainant that

Dinesh Tulsi Ram,Smt. Badki, Shyam Mukesh Guddu are

demanding for new Maruti car and therefore they are

harassing me. \The incident belong to 26.6.2007 my son in

law bring my daughter at his house at that time there was

3.00 o clock in the day. On that day approximately 6 o clock

my son in law informed me that your daughter have

committed suicide. On this information I and my wife, my

son and 2-4 my known went to Geeta Chaudhury

matrimonial house, we went there and we had seen so many

persons were standing there, I enquired from my son in law

that he had told me that my daughter had committed suicide

that your daughter have committed suicide in her house, this

room was locked with interlock. The door of the room was

get opened I saw that the dead body of my daughter feet

were on bent on the sofa and on the body there were marks

of injuries. I tried to lodge the case. Those persons

threatened and scared me and taken my signature on blank

papers. These persons have committed the last ceremony of

my daughter against my will. After last ceremony I went to

my house, thereafter I had gone to police station Imliya to

lodge the case. They did not lodge my report. Thereafter

through Police Superintendent Sitapur I have submitted the

application to SHO and send the application to Director

General of Police through FAX, then I came to Sitapur Court

and in this regard I narrated the entire story to the

advocate. I get typed application through one typist on my

dictation, which I have dictated him, he type the same

matter and sign my signature on the application, the

remaining application 156(3) Cr.PC. was read over to the

complainant and shown to him, he said that this is the same

application, which I have submitted before the court and he

has confirmed his signature. On which Exhibited A 1. The

investigation officer in regard to incident recorded my

statement and shown the place of incident.

PW 2 Saroj Kumari above witness is the sister of

deceased, she stated in her chief examination that the

marriage of Geeta Chaudhury was solemnized on 13.6.2006

with the accused Dinesh present in the court and in the

marriage my family members have given gift etc. and see

off to Geeta Chaudhury, after 10-12 days of marriage my

sister Geeta Chaudhury came to her parents’ house from

her matrimonial house, then she told us that in the

matrimonial house of Geeta Chaudhury, her husband Dinesh

father in law Tulsi Ram, mother in law Smt. Badko elder

brother in law Mukesh and Shyam and Guddu for the

demand of dowry are harassing her. On getting this

information my father went to the matrimonial house of

Geeta Chaudhury had convince them, but they did not agree

properly. My father constructed one new house at Mohalla

Nepalpura District Sitapur. Its Grah Paresh ceremony was on

25.6.2007. On that day my sister came along with her

husband to our o house. In the night there was meal

arrangement, after eating the party, Dinesh had gone to his

house and my sister had stayed here and on 26.6.2007

Dinesh came in 3.00 o clock in the day and Dinesh said to

his wife Geeta go the house, we said please you don’t go

today. Today we are here and other guests are also here.

Dinesh said to her, you like here very much, he will not

permit you to stay here. Then my father told today send to

Geeta, we came outside near the vehicle, Dinesh’s said to

Geeta to site in the vehicle. Geeta will not return back. Then

Dinesh snatched to Geeta and sit her in Maruti car and he

said in case you want to meet her, meet her, now she will

not return back. Thereafter Dinesh sit my sister in the

vehicle and he took her to her house. He starts the vehicle

and said, he is having money to construct the house; he is

no money to giving to us. After take back to Geeta Dinesh

phone call to us at 6.00 P.M. that Geeta had expired. On

this information, my father, mother and one two person

went to the matrimonial house of Geeta. Where Geeta

hanged herself that door was locked , the door was open by

removing the bolt of the door, on opening the door we had

seen that my sister was strangulated and tied with Dhoti

and her feet were at Sofa, I have seen the mark of injuries

on Gaeta’s face, abdomen, back and feet. The entire in laws

members of Geeta were present inside the house. Dinesh

had killed to my sister Geeta. Dinesh had killed my sister for

the demand of dowry. The last death ceremony of my sister

Geeta was solemnized at her matrimonial house, we were

not include in it, because they had taken our signature on

blank paper, therefore we did not present in the death

ceremony. In regard to this incident C. O enquired from me

and recorded my statement.

PW 3 Inder Partap Chaudhury above witness is the

brother of the deceased, he depose in his oral evidence that

her sister Geeta Chaudhury marriage was solemnized on

13.2.2006 with Dinesh. We have given gift etc. to Geeta

Chaudhury and see off her. After 10-12 days of her see off

she had come to her parents’ house from her in laws house.

Then she told me that her husband Dinesh father in law

Tulsi Ram , mother in law Smt. Badko, elder brother in law

Mukesh Shyam and Guddu use to harass her for bringing

less dowry. On getting this information my father went to

her matrimonial house to convince them, he had given Rs

50,000/= cash to Dinesh, after receiving Rs. 50,000/-

Dinesh was calm for some days, thereafter he further start

the demand of Rs. 1 lac. My father constructed one new

house at Nepalpur. In that house the Grah Parvesh

ceremony was to be solemnized on 25.6.2007, his sister

Geeta Chaudhury and Dinesh had come to attend the

ceremony. The food and drink etc. were served, Dinesh after

eating meal he had gone to his house. Thereafter on

26.6.2007 Dinesh had come approximately 12.00 o’clock in

the day and he use to said to return back to Geeta

Chaudhury, we denied that today guest are present

therefore no go back, but Dinesh did not agree, forcibly he

took my sister approximately at 3.00 o clock in his Maruti

car. In the evening at about 6.00 o clock Dinesh had

informed through phone that Geeta had committed suicide.

On this information my mother, father and 2-4 relatives

went to the matrimonial house of Geeta Chaudhury, we had

seen that Geeta Chaudhury was hanging in her room in the

roof; her feet were bent on sofa set. I had seen the mark of

injuries on the body of my sister. In regard to the incident

C.O recorded my statement.

PW 4 Moonsa Ram Morya deposes in his oral evidence

that from 3.1.2000 he is working as Executive Engineer in

Block Sakran. Mr. Manohar Lal is working with me as my

subordinate. On 26.6.2007 Manohar Lal had informed me

through phone that the murder of my daughter Geeta

Chaudhury had been committed at her matrimonial house.

You come to the matrimonial house of my daughter at

Nakrhiya. Then on the next day in the morning 6.00 clock I

had gone to Nakhariya to the matrimonial house of Geeta

Chaudhury daughter of Manohar Lal. There Manohar Lal and

his wife and their family members were earlier present there

.The villagers and other so many persons were present

there. The dead body of Geeta Chaudhury was lying outside

the house. Out of the villagers some person gave me rough

draft on the paper, on looking this I written none paper. In it

I did not written anything from my side. As it is stated those

persons and in laws persons, in the same manner after

amendment I had written. On that paper apart from

Manohar Lal 3 persons signed their signature in front of me.

I don’t remember whether the last death ceremony was

solemnized in front of me . Later on Manohar Lal told me

that her daughter Geeta Chaudhury murder is committed

for dowry; therefore he will lodge the case.

PW 5 Umesh Pal deposes in his oral evidence that on

25.12.2017 he was posted on the post of C.M.L in police

station Imliya Susltanpur. On that day one typed complaint

under section 156(3) Cr.PC. received from the court on

which written the name of the complainant of the case

Manohar Lal. There was the court order to register the case.

According to the order of the court, the case no. 591/07,

under section 498A, 304B IPC and U/s ¾ Dowry Prohibition

Act was registered against Dinesh etc. The Chick FIR is in my

writing and signature, which is included in the file on which

exhibited Exb A2. The registration of this case was made by

me on the same day vide handing report no time 10.30 o

clock by affixing carbon copy with original G.D. and prepared

under one proceeding. Today G.D. is in front of me. Its

carbon copy is included in the file. . On comparing from

original G.D. I certify on which Exhibited a 3.

PW 6 Karnakar C.O deposes in his chief mention that

on 26.10.2007 I was posted as circle officer in police station

Sadar. On that day I had taken the investigation of case no.

591/01, under section 498A, 304 B, IPC and section ¾

Dowry Prohibition Act. The above case was registered on

25.12.2007 in police station Imliya Susltanpur on the

direction of the Hon’ble Court. After receiving the

investigation I reach at police station Imliya Susltanpur and

received the copy of chik, which was examined and

mentioned in C.D.

On 29.12.2007 recorded the statement of the complainant

Manohar Lal at his house, the same was mentioned in C.D.

Thereafter to take the complainant of the case reach at

village Nakrahiya at the place of incident and on the

demarcation of the complainant examined the incident and

prepared its ideal site plan which is included in the file, the

same is exhibited as Exhibit a 4.

On 19.01.2008 I went to village Nakrahiya and

conducted the interrogation from villagers. On 6.3.08

recorded the statement of Mansa Ram Morya in my office.

Thereafter I recorded the statement of Smt. Saroj and on

the basis of statement of witnesses; I increased under

section 201 IPC. On 19.3.2008 I recorded the statement of

witness Partap Chaudhury in my office. Thereafter I came to

police station Imliya Susltanpur and recorded the statement

of C. Umesh Pal the writer of FIR in the police station. On

25.3.2008 conducted the raid at the house of accused

Dinesh Kumar, he did not found. On 27.3.2008 I receive the

information that the accused Dinesh Kumar surrender before

the Court. On this information, I came to Sitapur court and

outside C.J.M. Court recorded the statement of accused

Dinesh Kumar in the court yard.

On 19.4.2008 after complete investigation, on the basis

of sufficient evidence dispatch the charge sheet under

section 498A,304 B,201, ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act vide

charge sheet no.13 before the court which is present in the

file and present before me . On which Exhibited Exb A 5.

 The statement of accused was recorded under section

313 Cr.PC. in which he has admitted to solemnize his

marriage with deceased Geeta Chaudhury on 13.2.2006 and

depose that the deceased due to jealously and intentionally

committed suicide and the last ceremony of the deceased,

the family members were present and with their consent the

last ceremony was committed with their consent. The

complainant submitted the application under section 156(3)

Cr.PC. by altering the facts and the information has been

submitted in delay, the investigation is conducted polluted

and the report is submitted in wrong manner. The accused in

his statement depose that the witnesses depose the

evidence due to enmity and he also depose that the time of

marriage and death is correct but Geeta Chaudhury due

malicious with and emotion committed the suicide. I forcibly

took Geeta Chaudhury from her parents’ house. Where all

the relatives were present. The accused was ever having

sweet relations with the deceased but the commission of

suicide but the deceased was bad luck. The accused in his

defense examined DW 1 Dharam Raj DW 2 Jagdish.

DW 2Dharam Raj deposes in his oral evidence that

accused Dinesh Kumar is residing in my village. Dinesh

Kumar marriage was solemnized at Nepalpur Police station

Kotwali resident of Sitapur with Geeta Chaudhury daughter

of Manohar Lal. When Geeta Chaudhury had expired, then I

was gram Pardhan of my village. I did not receive any news

in regard to any dispute between Dinesh Kumar and Geeta

Chaudhury nor I have received any complaint from

Manohar Lal .At the time of death I was called . Geeta

parents were called by informing them. The dead body of

Geeta Chaudhury was taken out in front of me and in front

of the parents of Gita Chaudhury by breaking the door.

Further the parents of Geeta Chaudhury said that my

daughter has committed suicide , in the presence of

reputed persons of the village and in the presence of J.E

and with their consent committed the funeral ceremony ,

prepare the panchyatnama and taken the signature of all

persons committed the funeral ceremony of Geeta

Chaudhury in front of Manohar Lal. Thereafter from police

station Imliya came S.O. and police official. At that time

Manohar: Lal and his family members were present there

and they have enquired from the complainant, if he is having

any doubt, they can initiate the proceeding, Manohar Lal

denied that there is no doubtful incident. Therefore he

doesn’t want to initiate any proceeding. The original incident

which was happened before me I am deposing the same.

This witness depose in his cross examination when Dinesh

was married, then I was not the president. I become

president in 2002. I don’t know when his marriage was

solemnized. I don’t know after how many years of the

marriage Geeta Chaudhury had expired. Dinesh and his

family members are residing in my village Gram Sabha I and

Dinesh family not use to visit each other house, when we

require any work, then we use to go each other house.

Geeta Chaudhury had expired on 26.6.2007. I have receive

the information of the death of Geeta Chaudhury through

villagers and from Dinesh Chaudhury in the evening at 3-4 o

clock, on receiving the information, immediately I had

reached in the house of Dinesh. I myself seen from the

window, I saw that the dead body of Geeta Chaudhury was

hanging with ring on the roof and strangulated with series,

till then the complainant of the case Manohar Lal and his

family members did not reach there. I am saying this fact

that Geeta Chaudhury had committed suicide, because she

had closed the door from inside .The dead body was taken

outside on my arrival on breaking the door, till then no

police official had reached there. The dead body was taken

out by Manohar Lal along with his entire family members; we

did not receive there any suicide note. It is correct to say

that no person commit suicide without any reason According

to my information Geeta Chaudhury was not suffering from

any disease.

DW 2 Jagdish deposes in his oral evidence that Dinesh’s

wife had expired on 26.6.2007 in the evening at 4.oclock in

the evening. The girl father had gone to call me that my

daughter had hanged herself inside the room; its door was

closed inside. When I reached there, I cut the belan of the

door and open the door, the door was open, there after the

family member of the girl took out the dead body .Thereafter

with the consent of girl side her father and with her family

member, thereafter the officer of girl father J.E. prepare the

panchyatnama, they had committed the last ceremony. This

witness deposes in his statement that Dinesh is residing in

my village. The house of Dinesh is at the distance of 5-6

houses from my house, I don’t use to visit in the house of

Dinesh as villager I use to make Namaste to him. When

Dinesh’s wife had expired, her marriage was solemnized 5-6

months earlier from it. I remember the date of death of the

wife of Dinesh, but I don’t remember the date of marriage of

Dinesh. I don’t know whether the wife of Dinesh was sick or

not. Because I don’t use to go there, I had received the

information through villagers that she had hanged herself, it

is correct to say that someone will hanged herself when she

is harassed or in problem. The door was not broken but the

part of Belan of the door was withdrawn.

The learned counsel of the accused argued that the

first information was lodged lately. It is also argued after the

completion of funeral of Geeta Chaudhury, the complainant

use to demand Rs. 5 lac from the accused, on denial of the

said amount, the complainant submitted application under

section 156(3) Cr.PC. before the court. I am not agreeing

with this plea, because this type of any statement did not

depose before argument after the incident till today. . But on

not writing the complaint of the incident by the police, the

complainant written to Police superintendent and other

senior officer in regard to incident and submitted application,

on not initiation of proceeding, the complainant submitted

application under section 156(3) Cr.PC. before the court. On

which the court lodged First information report pass order to

conduct the investigation.PW 1 Manohar Lal today orally

depose clear statement in oral evidence that the report was

not lodged in the police station and he committed the

defence before Police Superintendent, Director General of

Police and Human Right Commission through FAX, on not

taking any action submitted application under

section156(3) Cr.PC. before the court , on which confirming

his signature and proved the application Exb A 1. In this

manner PW 1 clear the reason to lodge the report of the

incident in delay.

From the above evidence and defense evidence it is not

proved that the complainant of the case after the last death

ceremony of his daughter may demand Rs. 5 lac from the

accused. On not paying the said amount by the accused may

get register the case, but the police did not initiate the case
due to not taking application, the applicant had to submit

application before the court to register the case.

The learned counsel of the accused argued that the

accused was having objection that she may not talk with her

brother in law, because he does not like him. But this type of

objection did not prove from the available evidence nor in

this regard the accused raise any objection with deceased

brother, mother or brother sister etc. But Geeta Chaudhury

is 3rd number daughter of the complainant. The accused also

not make it clear he was having objection to talk to any 2

elder brother in law of deceased. He also did not clear the

name of that brother in law. In this manner to level charges

by the counsel of the accused she uses to talk with her

brother in law, her speaking was not linked to the accused.

It is not proved from the available evidence.

The learned counsel of the accused argued that there

was Grah Parvesh in the house of complainant of the case,

in which accused bring his wife Geeta Chaudhury and from

there accused forcibly took back to her, from which the wife

being teasing, she had committed suicide I am not agree

with this power. But from the available evidence it is not

proved from the evidence of PW 1, PW2, PW3 oral evidence

that the accused on included his wife in Grah Paresh and on

the dt of incident after taking the deceased at 3.00 clock, on

the same day before 6.00o clock he beaten her for the
demand of dowry therefore the deceased committed her

suicide in the house of the accused’s

The learned counsel of accused that the statement of PW 1

and PW 2 are contradictory, from which the charges of dowry

murder is become doubtful. I am not agree of the plea

because the accused had conducted interrogation in detail

with the accused, from which it is natural to come some

contradictory in the statement , therefore there is no

adverse effect on the prosecution story.

The learned counsel of the accused had also argued that

deceased Panchyatnama was written by PW 4 Moonsa Ram

and the last funeral ceremony was conducted with the

consent of the complainant, I am not agree with this plea,

because the last ceremony of the deceased was committed

under the pressure of the accused in his village and get

executed panchyatnama, which his illegal because in the

matter of suicide , it is compulsory to inform the police, on

which use to conduct the postmortem of the decease. While

the accused did not initiate this type of any proceeding, in

this manner accused he committed act against the law.

The learned counsel of the accused argued that the

mediator of the marriage if Ram Lakhan, but the accused did

not make him witness which was one important evidence. I

am not agreeing with this plea that under section 134 Indian
Evidence Act the quantity is not compulsory to prove any

fact, but on the basis of evidence of one witness, the

accused can be proved guilty. As it is settled in Hon’ble

Supreme Court Judicial citation 2011(72) - A.C.C. 327 S.C.

Vipin Kumar vs. West Bengal state citation it is settled

means to prove any fact did not require the importance of

number of the witnesses, but it is the important of the

evidence of the quality of the witnesses and the prosecution

from his oral evidence proved the matter of dory murder.

The learned counsel of the accused argued that PW 6

Investigation officer, who had initiated sitting in the police

station and he did not initiate correct investigation. I am not

agreeing with the plea. Because the investigation officer

after recording the evidence, he has submitted the charge

sheet and present before the court, he himself record the

statement of witness and prove the charge sheet.

The learned counsel of the accused argued that there is

no evidence against the accused for dowry murder.

Therefore the accused be acquitted

The learned counsel of the accused showing the faith

in Hon’ble Supreme Court 2011(73)-A.C.C. page 343 S.C.

Hari Charan etc. Madhya Pradesh citation and he argued that

the prosecution should prove their own matter against the

accused beyond any doubt. The above citation was

respectfully examined I am completely agree of the concept

of the above citation.

On behalf of the prosecution the learned Assistant

District Assistant District Government counsel argued that

the death of the deceased has caused within 7 years. Due to

the demand of dowry and not award of dowry, her husband

use to beat to her for dowry and use to torture her, in the

written tehrir Exb a 1 the date of marriage is mention

13.02.2006 and the death of the deceased caused on

26.6.2007. The accused had also not denied this fact that his

marriage was not solemnized with the deceased on

13.2.2006. Therefore the marriage of the deceased

solemnized to be proved one year 4 month 13 days ago,

means the marriage of the deceased proved to be

solemnized within 7 years of the death of the deceased.

For implementation of section 304B, the following elements

are necessary:-

1. The death of the female or funeral or physical loss in

general circumstances or under general circumstances

as expected otherwise should cause.

2. Such death should cause within 7 years of the

marriage

3. She /her husband or her husband relative should be

kept her under cruelty.

4. Such cruelty should be in regard to demand of dowry

5. Such cruelty or torture should made by the deceased

husband immediately before her death.

PW 1 in his oral evidence make it clear solemnize the

marriage of his daughter Geeta Chaudhury on 13.2.2006

with Dinesh Kumar and in the marriage given gift article

in the marriage as gift and see off his daughter. The girl

stayed at her matrimonial house for 10-12 days, during

this period my daughter told that her husband Dinesh

Kumar, father in law Tulsi Ram, mother in law Smt., girl

brother in law Mukesh Kumar, brother in law Guddu are

taunting for bring less dowry and on this information I

and my wife and 2-3 person went to the matrimonial

house of Geeta, the above accused persons demanded

Maruti car from us in dowry and I show my inability to

give the same, on this the accused person said in case

you will not give us Maruti car, we will kill your daughter.

On this I make the arrangement OF Rs. 50,000 and

cooperated those to purchase second hand Maruti car and

thereafter for some days the matter was calm. The

complainant also deposes this statement that my house

which was situated at Nepalpur, its Grah Parvesh

ceremony was to be solemnized on 25.6.2007. In the

function of this Grah Parvesh my son in law Dinesh Kumar

and my daughter Geeta Chaudhury came in the same

Maruti car and thereafter Geeta Chaudhury told to the

complainant that Dinesh Tulsi Ram, Smt. Badki, Shyam

Mukesh Guddu are demanding for new Maruti car and

therefore they are harassing me. \The incident belong to

26.6.2007 my son in law bring my daughter at his house

at that time there was 3.00 o clock in the day. On that

day approximately 6 o clock my son in law informed me

that your daughter have committed suicide. On this

information I and my wife, my son and 2-4 my known

went to Geeta Chaudhury matrimonial house, we went

there and we had seen so many persons were standing

there, I enquired from my son in law that he had told me

that my daughter had committed suicide that your

daughter have committed suicide in her house, this room

was locked with interlock. The door of the room was get

opened I saw that the dead body of my daughter feet

were on bent on the sofa and on the body there were

marks of injuries. I tried to lodge the case. Those persons

threatened and scared me and taken my signature on

blank papers. These persons have committed the last

ceremony of my daughter against my will

This witness also makes clear in his cross examination

that her daughter twice told for the demand of Maruti car

in dowry. The complainant also deposes in his evidence

that the complainant in the marriage feta Chaudhury also

given bed almirah utensil sofa set. They had also gone in

Chautha ceremony of girl and bring back her, then she

also complaint for dowry. The complainant clearly depose

statement that he had given Rs. 50,000/- to her son in

law for the purchase of Maruti cry, which he had paid

making arrangement from his house. In this manner from

the statement of pW1 to make the demand of dowry by

the accused and the death of the deceased caused within

not normal circumstances within 7 years of the

solemnization of marriage not to fulfill the demand of

dowry and due to the behavior of torture and cruelty and

beating, in consequent to it the deceased committed

suicide in the house of the accused.

PW 2 deceased sister also depose in his oral evidence and

clearly depose that her sister Geeta Chaudhury told her

that her in laws are harassing for the demand of dowry.

On getting this information my father went to the

matrimonial house of Geeta Chaudhury had convince

them, but they did not agree properly. My father

constructed one new house at Mohalla Nepalpura District

Sitapur. Its Grah Paresh ceremony was on 25.6.2007. On

that day my sister came along with her husband to our o

house. In the night there was meal arrangement, after

eating the party, Dinesh had gone to his house and my

sister had stayed here and on 26.6.2007 Dinesh came in

3.00 o clock in the day and Dinesh said to his wife Geeta

go the house, we said please you don’t go today. Today

we are here and other guests are also here. Dinesh said

to her, you like here very much, he will not permit you to

stay here. Then my father told today send to Geeta, we

came outside near the vehicle, Dinesh’s said to Geeta to

site in the vehicle. Geeta will not return back. Then

Dinesh snatched to Geeta and sit her in Maruti car and he

said in case you want to meet her, meet her, now she will

not return back. Thereafter Dinesh sit my sister in the

vehicle and he took her to her house. He starts the vehicle

and said, he is having money to construct the house; he is

no money to giving to us. After take back to Geeta Dinesh

phone call to us at 6.00 P.M. that Geeta had expired. On

this information, my father, mother and one two person

went to the matrimonial house of Geeta. Where Geeta

hanged herself that door was locked , the door was open

by removing the bolt of the door, on opening the door we

had seen that my sister was strangulated and tied with

Dhoti and her feet were at Sofa, I have seen the mark of

injuries on Gaeta’s face, abdomen, back and feet. The

entire in laws members of Geeta were present inside the

house. Dinesh had killed to my sister Geeta. Dinesh had

killed my sister for the demand of dowry. The last death

ceremony of my sister Geeta was solemnized at her

matrimonial house, we were not include in it, because

they had taken our signature on blank paper, This witness

also depose in her cross examination that Geeta told her

that they use to harass her for the demand of dowry and

Geeta also told her that he also use to beat her for the

demand of dowry. Geeta also told that for the demand of

dowry Dinesh use to harass her. Geeta also told me to

arises dispute quarrel Ervin this manner from the

evidence of the real sister of the deceased due to non-

fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the accused use to

harass and torture to deceased and insulted him

therefore the incident happened.

PW 3 is the brother of the deceased. He also deposes

clear evidence in his statement that her sister told him

that her in-laws member uses to harass and torture her

for bringing fewer dowries. On getting this information his

father went to matrimonial house of Geeta to convince

them and given Rs. 50 thousand cash to Dinesh and

thereafter he further started the demand of Rs. 1 lac. In

Grah Parvesh Geeta Chaudhury husband Dinesh came on

25.6.2007, thereafter Dinesh had gone to the house On

26.6.2007 Dinesh’s came in the day and he was saying to

return back to Geeta Chaudhury, the person said not to

go, but Dinesh did not agree , forcibly he took my sister

at 3,00 o clock and went in Maruti Car and at 6.00 o

clock he give the information that Geeta Chaudhury has

committed suicide and going there we had seen that her

dead body was strangulated with roof and he had seen

the marks of injury on her body. This witness deposes in

his cross examination that the last ceremony of Geeta

Chaudhury was committed forcibly. He also depose that

Geeta Chaudhury was having one Maruti car , he was

raising demand for the purchase of Maruti Car , my father

had given Rs, 50,000 and Dinesh came in that Maruti car

at my house in the Grah Parvesh, Dinesh forcibly took my

sister Geeta Chaudhury, her sister was not happy. He also

deposes statement that Dinesh use to beat to my sister.

From the statement of this witness due to non-supply of

the dowry demand of the accused to harass and

torture to the deceased, it is prove to beat her. In

consequent to it happened the incident.

It is also prove from the statement of PW 1,PW2,PW 3

oral evidence that the last ceremony of Geeta Chaudhury

was committed at the matrimonial house of Geeta

Chaudhury forcibly without the consent of the complainant

of the case, but under pressure, coercion and threaten

get executed the Panchyat name from PW 4 which was

against the law, because the death of Geeta Chaudhury is

not committed in normal circumstances and therefore

according it was necessary to caused postmortem of the

deceased.

According to section 201 IPC, in case burn the dead

body of the deceased, the accused can be convicted for

destroy the evidence. The accused knowingly that the

deceased had expired in in normal circumstances,

thereafter, he committed the last rites ceremony of the

deceased with the intention to destroy the evidence,

under the above section the offence of the accused is

proved.

That the accused deposed under section 313Cr.P.C.

that I forcibly bring back to the deceased from her

parents’ house, where the entire relatives were present.

Therefore Geeta Chaudhury had committed suicide under

emotion . It is proved that the accused for

the demand of dowry and use to harass and torture to the

deceased and insulted her, therefore the deceased

committed suicide in the house of the accused.

The accused in his defense examined to DW 1and

DW2, from their statement it is not proved that the

accused has not committed the demand of dowry from the

deceased or her family members and the accuse may not

harass and torture to the deceased for the demand of

dowry, they also admitted that Geeta Chaudhury was not

 suffering from any disease and he also admit that it is

correct to say no one committed suicide without any

reason, but accused for the demand of dowry use to

harass and torture her wife and beating and insulting,

therefore happened the incident

The Hon’ble Supreme Court 2009(3) C.S.C. page 1266

S.C. Raman Kumar Versus Punjab State Citation settled

immediate earlier generally it appears to use cruelty or

harass between the deaths of the deceased duration

should not more. The demand of dowry etc. before

cruelty, there should be possible contact before death of

the deceased. It is proved from the above evidence that

the marriage was solemnized with the deceased one year

4 month 13 days before the death and very much little

time the accused had committed the demand of dowry

and due to its non-fulfillment the accused have committed

cruelty and torture behavior and insulted her and beaten.

Therefore the deceased committed suicide in the house of

the accused.

Hon’ble Supreme Court 2006(1) S.C.C. Page 681 S.C.

Mookkakrooi Kirkland vs. Maharashtra Stte citation settled

this that the deceased had expired at her husband house and

he proved himself innocent. It is proved from the available

evidence that the death of the deceased has caused at the

house of the accused and the accused failure to prove he

innocent.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court citation 2009 (1) S.C.C.

Criminal page 785 S.C. Devi Dayal Vs. Rajasthan State

citation it is settled that the death of the deceased caused

within 7 years in un-normal condition and caused due to the

demand of dowry and caused torture and cruelty with the

deceased for demand of dowry, the accused did not leave

cruelty, in that circumstances it is admitted as correct the

accused guilty under section 304 b IPC and under section

113 Indian Evidence Act to make concept for the commission

of dowry murder.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2006(3) S.C.C. page

1137 S.C. judicial citation settled this that the evidence of

the interested witness cannot express

Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009 (3) S.C.C. page 543

Mahesh Verso Maharashtra State citation it is settled that the

investigation officer is no enmity with the accused , so that

false case can be registered, the investigation officer

recorded the statement of all the witnesses and present

before the court and supported it.

 It is proved from the evidence available on the file that

the deceased within one year 4 month 13 days of the

marriage death due hanged and beating. It is proved from

the evidence of PW1, PW 2, &PW3 that the accused due to

non-supply of Maruti car in the dowry, beaten to the accused

and tortured her and to commit brutal behavior with her

and committed the behavior to insult her, the same was her

the reason homicide murder. Therefore under section 113 B

Indian Evidence, it is presumed that the death of the

deceased cause due to dowry. In that circumstances, the

accused is liable to prove denial of the demand of murder,

therefore the accused in his defense examined to DW1

Dharm Raj, DW2 Jagdish. From their statement did not

prove the innocent of accused.

Hon’ble Supreme Court citation 2009(30 C.C.S.C. Page

1489 S.C.Gurunath Konkapp Keri etc. Vs. Karnataka State

citation it is settled when prove one source of incident, then

from the pity differences did not adverse effect.

On the above discussion I come to the conclusion that

the accused Dinesh Kumar due to the demand of dowry, due

to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the accused

committed torture, cruelty behavior with his wife Smt Geeta

Chaudhury, the death of the deceased caused on 26.6.2007

on the day of incident, the report of the same was lodged by

the order of the court and after investigation submitted the

charge sheet against the accused.

The prosecution through their oral and documentary

evidence proved to commit cruelty and demand of dowry by

the accused and due to non-fulfillment of the demand of

dowry and committed with the intention to destroy the

evidence of the above charges.

Therefore on the basis of the above discussion, I come

to the conclusion that the prosecution get success to prove

the case beyond any doubt against the accused under

section 498A,304 B,201 IPC and section 4 Dowry

prohibition Act. The accused is liable to be guilty against the

above charges.

Order

The accused Dinesh Kumar son of Shri Tulsi Ram

resident of village Nakrahiya Police station Imliya, Susltanpur

District Sitapur is convicted under section 498A,304 B, 201

IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused is on bail. His

surety bond is cancelled; he is taken in judicial custody. The

accused on the point of quantum submit argument.

Date 16.7.2011

Mahinder Singh
Additional Sessions Judge No.5
Sitapur
 The accused is present with his counsel, he was heard

on the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel of the

accused argued that the accused be punished minimum.

I have considered on this plea, the accused was proved

guilty in the offence under section 498A, 304 B, 201 IPC and

section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and he is punishing

according to law.

Order

The accused Dinesh Kumar son of Shri Tulsi Ram,

resident of Nakrahiya Susltanpur, District Sitapur is

punished under section 498A,304 B, 201 I.P.C. and under

section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act 10 year R.I.

The accused is proved guilty under section 498A, IPC

and under section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, but he is not

punished with separately imprisonment, because the offence

of under section 498A Cr.PC. and section 4 Dowry

Prohibition Act is smaller than under section 304 B IPC.

The accused is found guilty under section 201 IPC and

imposed within 7 years R.I imprisonment and fine of Rs.

2000/-. In case of nonpayment of fine, he will have to suffer

4 month additional imprisonment.

All the conviction will run concurrently.

 The accused conviction warrant be prepare and send to

jail.