Noor Alam @ Babu State of U.P v. …
Case Details
Judgment
1. State and perused the record. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has 2. been filed by the appellant namely Noor Alam @ Babu s/o Sri Noor Mohammad impeaching the judgment and order 18.11.2013, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow (in short "Trial Court") in Session No.776 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2011, under Section- 306 IPC, Police Station - Vikas Nagar, District - Lucknow thereby convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentencing to undergo three and half years' Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine he has to further undergo three months' additional rigorous imprisonment.
3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell is to the effect that the marriage of the appellant Noor Alam @ Babu, S/o Noor Mohammad was solemnized with the deceased Sashi Kashyap on 30th April, 2010. It is to be noted that indisputedly the marriage was inter religion marriage and the deceased solemnized marriage with appellant on her own volition. On 4th May, 2011, Sashi Kashyap, wife of the appellant died and the 2 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 information of the death of Sashi Kashyap was received by the complainant namely Ram Prasad Kashyap, father of the deceased, at 7.45 P.M. on 04.05.2011. This information was provided by a young boy sent by the accused-appellant. The F.I.R. indicates that the deceased was ill treated/tortured by the accused-appellant, his brother and his sister-in- law. The allegations in the F.I.R. are also with regard to demand of dowry.
4. The aforesaid incident was reported by the informant Ram Prasad Kashyap by submitting a written report (Ext.Ka-1) at Police Station - Vikas Nagar, District – Lucknow. An F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 92/2011, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The inquest was carried on 05.05.2011 by Dr. Chaturbhuji Gupta, Additional City Magistrate-V and thereafter the body of the deceased was sent for the post mortem on the same day i.e. on 05.05.2011.
5. In the post mortem, the cause of death could not be ascertained therefore the Viscera was preserved and it was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination/expert opinion.
6. Upon completion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer (in short “IO”), which includes preparation of site plan and recording the statement(s) of witnesses, the IO submitted charge sheet for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short “D.P. Act”).
7. Upon receiving the charge-sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Session where it was registered as Session Trial No.766 of 2011 and charges were framed for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act, which were denied by the accused and trial was claimed.
8. To establish it case, the prosecution examined statement of Ram Prasad Kashyap (PW-1), proved the written report as also the
allegations/facts indicated in the written report. Smt. Sita Kashyap (PW- 2), who narrated the story as indicated in the F.I.R. Dr. U.K. Prasad (PW-3) proved the Post Mortem Report. Raju (PW-4), brother of the deceased also narrated the story indicated in F.I.R. Dr. Chaturbhuj Gupta, Sub Divisional Magistrate Magistrate (PW-5) proved the inquest report. Anand Kulkarni, Circle Officer/I.O. (PW-6) and C.O. Rajesh Kumar (PW-7). These witnesses proved documentary evidence viz. 3 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 written report (Ext.Ka-1), inquest report (Ext.Ka-2), post mortem report (Ext.Ka-3), C.D. (Ext.Ka-4), Photo (Ext.Ka-5), Seal (Ext.Ka-6), Chik (Ext.Ka-7), site plan (Ext.Ka-7) and charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-8). After closing the evidence of prosecution, statement of accused- 9. appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellant denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted. The trial court after considering the evidence on record including 10. the statement of PW-1 and PW-2, main witnesses of the fact as also the fact that marriage was solemnized by the deceased on her own volition with the accused-appellant and also the opinion expressed in Viscera Report, according to which the deceased died on account of consuming the Indosulphine insecticide, acquitted the accused Shahid and Farida, brother and sister-in-law respectively of the main accused and convicted the appellant-Noor Alam @ Babu for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., after acquitting him for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. as also Section 4 of DP Act. The relevant portion of the judgment, under appeal, dated 18.11.2013 is extracted herein under :- “अतः उपरो(cid:9)त अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(cid:17)य म(cid:19) यह त(cid:21)य सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त हुआ है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)ी श(cid:10)श (cid:28)!यप से मधुर स$(cid:23)%ध थे और अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(ी पी०ड,लू01 ने अपनी -जरह म(cid:19) जो त(cid:21)य (cid:28)ह(cid:19) ह. उनसे अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण 1वारा दहेज (cid:28)ी माँग (cid:28)रना या अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन प( 1वारा पैसे (cid:28)ा 5दया जाना स%देह से परे सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं है और अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(ीगण ने पैसा देने (cid:28)ी (cid:28)ोई 9त:थ या समय (cid:11)ी अपने सा(cid:17)य म(cid:19) नहीं (cid:28)हा है और न ही पैसे (cid:28)ा ;ोत ही सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या है । अतः ऐसी अव>था म(cid:19) %यायालय यह 9न?(cid:28)@A 9न(cid:28)ालने (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये (cid:23)ाBय है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन प( यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रने म(cid:19) असफल रहा है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण ने मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो पैसे (cid:28)ी मॉग (cid:28)र(cid:28)े या पैसा ले(cid:28)र FताGडत (cid:27)(cid:28)या । जहाँ त(cid:28) धारा-113 (cid:23)ी (cid:11)ा०सा(cid:17)य अ:ध० (cid:28)ी अवधारणा (cid:28)ा Hव%दु है इस Hव%दु पर अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन प( (cid:28)ो यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रना था (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण ने मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA शारीMर(cid:28) एवं मान(cid:10)स(cid:28) Oप से FताGडत (cid:27)(cid:28)या । इस Hव%दु पर मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)े पो>टमाटAम एवं पंचायतनाम(cid:19) म(cid:19) उस(cid:28)े शरीर पर (cid:28)ोई मृJयु पूवA चोट नहीं पायी गयी है। अ(cid:23) यह F!न उठता है (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:9)या %यायालय धारा -113 (cid:23)ी (cid:11)ा०सा(cid:17)य अ:ध० म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)े HवOR (cid:28)ोई अवधारणा (cid:28)र स(cid:28)ती है या नहीं । इस Hव%दु पर अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ी ओर से सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आन इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995-2013 पेज-1167 दुगाA Fसाद आ5द (cid:23)नाम >टेट आफ यू०पी० (cid:28)ो दशाAया गया है -जसम(cid:19) 113 (cid:23)ी (cid:28)े Hव%दु पर माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने यह अवधाMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या (cid:27)(cid:28) दहेज हJया (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त होना चा5हये (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो दहेज (cid:28)ी मॉग (cid:28)ो ले(cid:28)र उस(cid:28)ी मौत से ठी(cid:28) पूवA मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)े साथ Vूरता (cid:28)ो सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या जाना चा5हये । उपरो(cid:9)त मामले म(cid:19) (cid:28)ेवल Fताडना (cid:28)े Hव%दु पर (cid:28)ेवल मौWX(cid:28) (cid:23)यान थे और (cid:28)ोई अ%य सा(cid:17)य नहीं था । ऐसी अव>था म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ो धारा-498 ए,304 (cid:23)ी (cid:11)ा०दं०सं० (cid:28)े अ%तगAत दो@ मु(cid:9)त (cid:28)र 5दया गया और उन(cid:28)े HवOR (cid:28)ोई अवधारण नहीं (cid:28)ी गयी । इसी (cid:10)सRा%त (cid:28)ो 4 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आनं इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995- 2013 म(cid:19) पेज-911 तीरथ (cid:28)ुमारी आ5द (cid:23)नाम >टेट आफ हMरयाणा (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) (cid:11)ी लागू (cid:27)(cid:28)या है। इस(cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आन इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995-2013 पेज-86 हरजीत (cid:10)सहं (cid:23)नाम >टेट आफ पंजा(cid:23) म(cid:19) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु शादी (cid:28)े सात व@A (cid:28)े अ%दर जहर (cid:28)े सेवन से हुयी। पYावली पर (cid:28)ोई ऐसा सा(cid:17)य नहीं था (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA उस(cid:28)े प9त या उस(cid:28)े नातेदारZ ने उस(cid:28)े साथ (cid:28)ोई Vूरता (cid:28)ी हो । इस(cid:10)लये अपीलाथ[/अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:28)े HवOR धारा-113 (cid:23)ी म(cid:19) (cid:28)ोई अवधारणा नहीं (cid:28)ी जा स(cid:28)ी और अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ो दो@ मु(cid:9)त (cid:28)र 5दया गया । इस(cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आन इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995-2013 पेज-869 तरसेम (cid:10)सहं (cid:23)नाम >टेट आफ पंजा(cid:23) (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) अपीलाथ[/ अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:28)ो 304 (cid:23)ी म(cid:19) द-\डत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया था और मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु फासफोरस (cid:28)$पाउ%ड (cid:28)े सेवन से हुयी थी और मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)े शरीर पर अटा]सी म(cid:19) दो चोट(cid:19) (cid:11)ी पायी गयी थीं। अपीलाथ[ /अ(cid:10)(cid:11) (cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त अ%य लोगZ (cid:28)ो दो@ मु(cid:9)त (cid:28)र 5दया गया था। माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने (cid:28)हा (cid:27)(cid:28) अपीलाथ[/अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:28)ो अ(cid:28)ेले मौत (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये -ज$मेदार ठहराना %यायो:चत नहीं है । इस(cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आन इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995-2013 पेज-1212 एवं 1213 टी अOनतपOनजोथी (cid:23)ना >टेट एसएचओ पा-\डचेरी म(cid:19) अवधाMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन (cid:28)ो दहेज हJया (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रना चा5हये (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो उस(cid:28)े प9त व प9त (cid:28)े Mर>तेदारZ 1वारा मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA FताGडत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया हो और यह अवधाMरत (cid:11)ी (cid:27)(cid:28)या (cid:27)(cid:28) अगर (cid:28)ोई FJय( या परो( ऐसा (cid:28)ोई सा(cid:17)य नहीं है तो अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त व उस(cid:28)ी पJनी (cid:28)े (cid:23)ीच अपने वैचाMर(cid:28) मत(cid:11)ेद (cid:28)े आधार पर दहेज हJया यानी 304 (cid:23)ी (cid:28)ा (cid:28)ोई साराशं नहीं 9न(cid:28)ाला जा स(cid:28)ता है। अतः उपरो(cid:9)त दशाAये गये (cid:10)सRा%त %यायालय (cid:28)े सम( इस (cid:28)ेस म(cid:19) लागू होते ह. (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) %यायालय (cid:28)े सम( (cid:28)ेस म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)े 1वारा मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA शारीMर(cid:28) व मान(cid:10)स(cid:28) Oप से FताGडत (cid:28)रना सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं हुआ है इस(cid:10)लय %यायालय यह 9न?(cid:28)@A 9न(cid:28)ालने (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये (cid:23)ाBय है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)े HवOR धारा- 113 (cid:23)ी (cid:11)ा०सा(cid:17)य अ:ध० (cid:28)े अ%तगAत (cid:28)ोई F9त(cid:28)ूल अवधारणा नहीं (cid:28)ी जा स(cid:28)ती है। जहाँ त(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु (cid:28)ा F!न है उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा MरपोटA (cid:28)े अनुसार इ\डोस^फान इ%से-(cid:9)टसाइड (cid:28)े सेवन से हुयी है। इस स$(cid:23)%ध म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ी ओर से त(cid:28)A 5दया गया है (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा MरपोटA (cid:28)ी जॉच Hव!वसनीय नहीं है (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)ी जाँच 6 माह (cid:28)े (cid:23)ाद (cid:28)रायी गयी है। इस स$(cid:23)%ध म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन प( (cid:28)े Hव1वान अ:धव(cid:9)ता (cid:28)ा त(cid:28)A है (cid:27)(cid:28) चूँ(cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा से स$(cid:23)-%धत (cid:27)(cid:28)सी (cid:11)ी अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(ी से (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)े स%द(cid:11)A म(cid:19) -जरह नहीं (cid:28)ी गयी है ऐसी ->थ9त म(cid:19) (cid:23)हस (cid:28)े >तर Hवसरा पर F!न उठाने (cid:28)ा (cid:28)ोई औ:चJय नहीं है । पYावली पर उपल,ध सा(cid:17)य (cid:28)े अवलो(cid:28)न से यह F(cid:28)ट होता है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ी ओर से (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) (cid:28)ोई -जरह नहीं (cid:28)ी गयी है ज(cid:23) (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)ी (cid:23)ा(cid:23)त पो>टमाटAम (cid:28)रने वाले डा(cid:9)टर व Hववेच(cid:28) से -जरह (cid:28)रने (cid:28)ा अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)े पास पयाA]त अवसर था। अतः अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ा (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)े स$(cid:23)%ध म(cid:19) त(cid:28)A (cid:23)लहीन है । Hव1वान अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(cid:17)य से यह त(cid:21)य सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं हुआ है (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA (cid:27)(cid:28)सी Fताडना (cid:28)ो (cid:28)ाMरत (cid:28)र(cid:28)े (cid:28)ी गयी हो । मृत(cid:28)ा व उस(cid:28)े प9त अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)े अTछे स$(cid:23)%ध थे इस(cid:10)लये इस (cid:23)ात (cid:28)ी स$(cid:11)ावना नहीं है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण ने मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो जहर 5दया हो (cid:9)यZ (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण 1वारा मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो अ>पताल ले जा(cid:28)र उस(cid:28)ा मेGड(cid:28)ल ऐड फराहम (cid:28)रने 5 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 (cid:28)ी (cid:28)ो(cid:10)शश (cid:28)ी गयी जैसा (cid:27)(cid:28) उसने अपने मौWX(cid:28) एवं द>तावेजी सा(cid:17)य से सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या है और उससे पूवA (cid:11)ी मेGड(cid:28)ल पच‘ यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रते ह. (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ा इलाज अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त 1वारा पूवA म(cid:19) (cid:11)ी (cid:28)राया गया और मृत(cid:28)ा अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:28)े साथ 26 माचA 2011 (cid:28)ो लXनउ आयी थी और उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु 4-5-2011 (cid:28)ो हो गयी । अतः इस अव:ध म(cid:19) ऐसा (cid:28)ोई त(cid:21)य सा(cid:17)य म(cid:19) नहीं आया -जससे मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो FताGडत (cid:28)रने (cid:28)ा त(cid:21)य Fतीत हो । अतः मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु (cid:28)ी स$(cid:11)ावनाओं म(cid:19) होमीसाइडल मृJयु (cid:28)ी स$(cid:11)ावना नहीं है (cid:23)-^(cid:28) इस (cid:23)ात (cid:28)ी स$(cid:11)ावना है (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा ने धोXे से इ\डोस^फान Hव@ ले (cid:10)लया हो या घर (cid:28)े अ%दर (cid:27)(cid:28)सी (cid:11)ी (cid:23)ात से तंग आ(cid:28)र उसने इ\डोस^फान Hव@ ले(cid:28)र आJम हJया (cid:28)ी हो। घर (cid:28)े अ%दर इ\डोस^फान इ%से(cid:9)टीसाइड (cid:28)ैसे आया और उस(cid:28)े (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा म(cid:19) इ%से(cid:9)टीसाइड (cid:28)ैसे पाया गया । इन पMर->थ9तयZ (cid:28)ा उ^लेX अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ो ही (cid:28)रना था। (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) धारा-106 (cid:11)ा०सा(cid:17)य अ:ध० म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त पर सा(cid:17)य (cid:28)ा (cid:11)ार था (cid:27)(cid:28) वह यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रे (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:27)(cid:28)न पMर->थ9तयZ म(cid:19) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)े शरीर म(cid:19) इ%डोस^फान Hव@ (cid:28)ैसे पहुँचा। (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु उस(cid:28)े Hववाह (cid:28)े सात व@A (cid:28)े अ%दर अFा(cid:28)ृ9त(cid:28) Oप से उस(cid:28)े 9नवास >थान पर हुयी है। अतः ऐसी अव>था म(cid:19) धारा-113 ए (cid:11)ारतीय सा(cid:17)य अ:ध9नयम म(cid:19) FाHवधान है (cid:27)(cid:28) ज(cid:23) यह F!न है (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:27)(cid:28)सी >Yी 1वारा आJमहJया (cid:28)ा (cid:28)रना उस(cid:28)े प9त या उस(cid:28)े प9त (cid:28)े (cid:27)(cid:28)सी नातेदार 1वारा दु?FेMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया है और यह द(cid:10)शAत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया है (cid:27)(cid:28) उसने अपने Hववाह (cid:28)ी तारीX से सात व@A (cid:28)ी अव:ध (cid:28)े (cid:11)ीतर आJमहJया (cid:28)ी थी और यह (cid:27)(cid:28) उस(cid:28)े प9त या उस(cid:28)े प9त (cid:28)े ऐसे नातेदार ने उस(cid:28)े F9त Vूरता (cid:28)ी थी, तो %यायालय मामले (cid:28)ी स(cid:11)ी अ%य पMर->थ9तयZ (cid:28)ो Bयान म(cid:19) रXते हुये यह उपधारणा (cid:28)र स(cid:28)ेगा (cid:27)(cid:28) ऐसी आJमहJया उस(cid:28)े प9त या उस(cid:28)े प9त (cid:28)े ऐसे नातेदार 1वारा दु?FेMरत (cid:28)ी गयी थी । अतः उपरो(cid:9)त FाHवधान (cid:28)े F(cid:28)ाश म(cid:19) %यायालय (cid:28)ी राय म(cid:19) मृत(cid:28)ा ने अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)े साथ Fेम Hववाह (cid:27)(cid:28)या था और वह मृJयु (cid:28)े समय Fसव अव>था म(cid:19) थी -जस(cid:28)ी देX(cid:11)ाल (cid:28)ी पूरी -ज$मेदारी नूर आलम पर थी। अतः ऐसी अव>था म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी देX(cid:11)ाल अTछी तरह से नहीं (cid:28)र स(cid:28)ा और (cid:28)ोई ऐसी घटना घर (cid:28)े अ%दर अव!य हुयी -जससे Hवच(cid:10)लत हो(cid:28)र मृत(cid:28)ा ने इ\डोस^फान Hव@ (cid:28)ा सेवन (cid:28)र (cid:10)लया। मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)े घर पर हुयी है और उस(cid:28)े नातेदारZ म(cid:19) उस(cid:28)े (cid:11)ाई शा5हद और उस(cid:28)ी (cid:11)ा(cid:11)ी फरीदा (cid:28)ो अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:23)नाया गया है। अ(cid:23) यह F!न उठता है (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो (cid:27)(cid:28)स F(cid:28)ार (cid:27)(cid:28)स(cid:28)े 1वारा आJमहJया (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये FेMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया। इस Hव%दु पर %यायालय स(cid:11)ी (cid:28)ेस (cid:28)ी पMर->थ9तयZ एवं त(cid:21)यZ (cid:28)ो देXते हुये (cid:28)ेवल अवधारणा ही (cid:28)र स(cid:28)ती है । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ा प9त था इस(cid:10)लये उस(cid:28)ी यह (cid:28)ानूनी व नै9त(cid:28) -ज$मेदारी थी (cid:27)(cid:28) वह मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ा bयाल रXता अतः वह अपने दा9यJव (cid:28)ा 9नवAहन (cid:28)रने म(cid:19) असफल रहा। इस(cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त जहाँ त(cid:28) सह अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)ा F!न है तो वह अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)ा (cid:23)डा (cid:11)ाई व (cid:11)ावज है और मृत(cid:28)ा उन(cid:28)े साथ 26-3-2011 से घटना (cid:28)ी 5दनां(cid:28) 4-5-2011 त(cid:28) रही (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) Hववाह (cid:28)े (cid:23)ाद अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम और मृत(cid:28)ा 5द^ली व (cid:23)ागपत (cid:23)डौत चले गये थे । इस दौरान अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त शा5हद व उस(cid:28)ी पJनी फरीदा से न तो पMरवादीप( से (cid:28)ोई (cid:23)ातचीत होना सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त है और उन(cid:28)े 1वारा मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ा bयाल रXना ए(cid:28) नै9त(cid:28) दा9यJव था । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन (cid:28)ी ओर से इन दोनो (cid:28)े HवOR इन(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ोई ओवर ए(cid:9)ट सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं हुआ है -जससे यह अवधारणा 9न(cid:28)ाली जा स(cid:28)े (cid:27)(cid:28) इन(cid:28)े (cid:27)(cid:28)सी (cid:28)ृJय 1वारा मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो आJमहJया (cid:28)े दु?FेMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया हो । ऐसी ->थ9त म(cid:19) %यायालय अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण फरीदा व शा5हद (cid:28)े HवOR मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो 6 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 आJमहJया (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये FेMरत (cid:28)रने (cid:28)ा (cid:28)ोई F9त(cid:28)ूल अवधारणा (cid:28)रना %यायो:चत समझती है । अतः %यायालय अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)ो स%देह (cid:28)ा ला(cid:11) देना %यायो:चत समझती है । अतः उपरो(cid:9)त सा(cid:17)य (cid:28)े Hववेचन से %यायालय इस 9न?(cid:28)@A पर पहुँची है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण नूर आलम, शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)े HवOR धारा-498 ए,304 (cid:23)ी एवं 302/34 (cid:11)ा०दं०सं० तथा धारा-4 दहेज F9त@ेध अ:ध9नयम (cid:28)ा आरोप स%देह से परे सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं हुआ है और वे उपरो(cid:9)त आरोHपत आरोप से दो@मु(cid:9)त (cid:27)(cid:28)ये जाने योdय है । (cid:27)(cid:28)%तु अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)े HवOR %यायालय 1वारा यह 9न?(cid:28)@A 9न(cid:28)ाला गया है (cid:27)(cid:28) नूर आलम 1वारा दु?FेMरत (cid:28)रने पर उस(cid:28)ी पJनी शशी (cid:28)!यप ने आJमहJया (cid:28)ी । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण नूर आलम, शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)ो धारा-498 ए,304 (cid:23)ी एवं 302 (cid:11)ा०दं०सं० तथा धारा-4 दहेज F9त@ेध अ:ध9नयम (cid:28)े आरोप से दो@मु(cid:9)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या जाता है । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त शा5हद %या9य(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)र(ा म(cid:19) -जला (cid:28)ारागार म(cid:19) है । अतः वह अ%य (cid:27)(cid:28)सी आरोप म(cid:19) वां9छत न हो तो उसे Mरहा (cid:27)(cid:28)या जावे । Mरहाई आदेश -जला (cid:28)ारागार FेH@त (cid:27)(cid:28)या जावे । चूँ(cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)ो उपरो(cid:9)त आरोHपत अपराध म(cid:19) दो@मु(cid:9)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या जा चु(cid:28)ा है । उपरो(cid:9)त अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण / अपीलाथ[गण (cid:28)ो आदे(cid:10)शत (cid:27)(cid:28)या जाता है (cid:27)(cid:28) वे ए(cid:28) स]ताह (cid:28)े अ%दर धारा-437 ए दं०F०सं० (cid:28)े अ%तगAत इस 9नणAय एवं आदेश (cid:28)े HवOR अपील समयाव:ध समा]त होने त(cid:28) (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये FJये(cid:28) 1व ाारा (cid:23)ीस-(cid:23)ीस हजार Oपये (cid:28)े fय-(cid:9)तगत (cid:23)%धपY एवं समान रा(cid:10)श (cid:28)े दो F9त(cid:11)ू इस आशय से F>तुत (cid:28)रेग(cid:19) (cid:27)(cid:28) य5द इस 9नणAय एवं आदेश (cid:28)े HवOR राgय (cid:28)ी ओर से माननीय उTच %यायालय (cid:28)े सम( (cid:28)ोई अपील F>तुत (cid:28)ी जाती है तो वह अपीलीय %यायालय (cid:28)े सम( उप->थत होग(cid:19)। अतः अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)ो धारा-306 (cid:11)ा०दं०सं० (cid:28)े आरोप (cid:28)ा दो@ी ठहराया जाता है । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त जमानत पर है उस(cid:28)े जमानत पY एवं (cid:23)%धपY 9नर>त (cid:27)(cid:28)ये जाते ह. और उन(cid:28)े F9त(cid:11)ूगण (cid:28)ो दा9यJव से उ%मो:चत (cid:27)(cid:28)या जाता है । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)ो %या9य(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)र(ा म(cid:19) (cid:10)लया जावे । द\ड (cid:28)े F!न पर सुनने हेतु पYावली 5दनां(cid:28)-14-11- 2013 (cid:28)ो F>तुत हो ।" In the aforesaid background of the case, the counsel for the 11. appellant has submitted that considering the facts of the case, according to which the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of marriage and the findings/observations recorded by the trial court for the purposes of convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. as also the spirit of Section 113-A and 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also that the appellant has already undergone about 30 months imprisonment and further that the incident is of 4th May, 2011, he does not want to press the appeal on merits and he is confining his prayer only with regard to reducing of sentence to the period already undergone.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused- appellant has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is 7 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 not impeaching the judgment and order of conviction and is confining his submission in the appeal only with respect to the order of sentence. It is for the reason that deceased, wife of the appellant, committed suicide within seven years of marriage and this aspect of the case was established by medical evidence and also that appellant has already spent about 30 months (02 years and 06 months). During trial he remained in jail for 24 months, as mentioned in the order on sentence dated 18.11.2023 and after conviction he was taken into custody on 13.11.2013 and was released on bail in terms of order of this Court dated 03.12.3013. The order dated 03.12.2013 is extracted herein under :- "(Crl. Misc. Application No.110129 of 2013) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months under section 306 I.P.C. together with a fine of Rs.20,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo three months additional imprisonment. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the terms of the bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail on the ground that death is unnatural and within seven years of the marriage. The sentence is only three years and six months and that is why the appellant was not released on bail during trial under Section 306 I.P.C. and appellant is in jail. Let appellant (Noor Alam @ Babu) be released on bail in Sessions Trial No.766/2011, Crime No.92/2011, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Vikash Nagar, District-Lucknow, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, provided he shall deposit half of the fine within two months from the date of order and rest half of the fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal." It is also stated that in the case of Paranagouda and another Vs. 13. State of Karnataka and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369, the conviction was modified by acquitting the appellants therein for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and convicting them for the offence under Section 306 and 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The relevant paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment are extracted hereunder:- "37. In the aforesaid background and the evidence on record as already noticed by us hereinabove, it can be safely noted that High Court ought to have examined as to whether accused could have been convicted for an offence for which no charge was framed and not undertaking of such an exercise would result in failure of justice? Thus, it will have to be seen from the facts unfolded in the 8 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 present case as to whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which they are being tried and whether the main facts sought to be established against them were explained to them clearly and whether they got a fair chance to defend themselves. If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessarily this Court will have to proceed further and examine as to whether accused can be convicted for the offence not charged and if the answer is in the negative it would result in acquittal of the accused for said offence. In the instant case the dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused person on account of which she committed suicide. It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by self- immolation. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though charge was not framed. The accused (appellant Nos.1 and 2) are now aged about 66 and 61 years respectively. They have already spent one year, one month and 27 days in prison. They do not have any past history of criminal record. Hence, a lenient view has to be taken while imposing the sentence. 38. For the reasons afore-stated the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court in SC No.35 of 2011 dated 14.09.2012 as affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.2847 of 2012 by judgment dated 20.07.2022 is hereby modified. The appellants are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default to pay the fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of the offence."
14. Learned A.G.A. Shri Badrul Hasan on the other hand opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the court below and keeping in view the evidence on record, accused-appellant has been rightly convicted.
15. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
16. That it is noteworthy that the incident took place way back in the year 2011. The accused-appellant has suffered in the matter for the past about 19 years and there is no any criminal antecedent of him during these years, as stated and which has not been refuted.
17. Considering the aforesaid and also the facts and evidence on record including the testimonies of witnesses of fact namely Complainant/Ram Prasad Kashyap (PW-1), Smt. Sita Kashyap (PW-2), medical and expert opinion, which indicates that deceased committed suicide within 07 years of marriage, and also the relevant provisions of law and settled proposition on the issue and also the period lapsed from the date of incident i.e. about 19 years as also the punishment/sentence 9 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 awarded to the accused-appellant under Section 306 IPC, which is justified, I am of the view that lenient view has to be taken with regard to sentence of the appellant. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeal is allowed in part. The 18. judgment and order of conviction dated order 18.11.2013, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow in Session No.776 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2011, under Section- 306 IPC, Police Station - Vikas Nagar, District - Lucknow is hereby modified. The appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. 30 months, with a fine of Rs.20000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The accused-appellant shall deposit the fine within three months
19. from today, if already not deposited. In case of breach of the above condition, the appellant shall be
20. taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him. The appellant is stated to be on bail, his personal bond is cancelled
21. and sureties are discharged.
22. Let a copy of this judgment and record be sent forthwith to the trial court concerned for compliance. November 13, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
allegations/facts indicated in the written report. Smt. Sita Kashyap (PW- 2), who narrated the story as indicated in the F.I.R. Dr. U.K. Prasad (PW-3) proved the Post Mortem Report. Raju (PW-4), brother of the deceased also narrated the story indicated in F.I.R. Dr. Chaturbhuj Gupta, Sub Divisional Magistrate Magistrate (PW-5) proved the inquest report. Anand Kulkarni, Circle Officer/I.O. (PW-6) and C.O. Rajesh Kumar (PW-7). These witnesses proved documentary evidence viz. 3 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 written report (Ext.Ka-1), inquest report (Ext.Ka-2), post mortem report (Ext.Ka-3), C.D. (Ext.Ka-4), Photo (Ext.Ka-5), Seal (Ext.Ka-6), Chik (Ext.Ka-7), site plan (Ext.Ka-7) and charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-8). After closing the evidence of prosecution, statement of accused- 9. appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellant denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted. The trial court after considering the evidence on record including 10. the statement of PW-1 and PW-2, main witnesses of the fact as also the fact that marriage was solemnized by the deceased on her own volition with the accused-appellant and also the opinion expressed in Viscera Report, according to which the deceased died on account of consuming the Indosulphine insecticide, acquitted the accused Shahid and Farida, brother and sister-in-law respectively of the main accused and convicted the appellant-Noor Alam @ Babu for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., after acquitting him for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. as also Section 4 of DP Act. The relevant portion of the judgment, under appeal, dated 18.11.2013 is extracted herein under :- “अतः उपरो(cid:9)त अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(cid:17)य म(cid:19) यह त(cid:21)य सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त हुआ है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)ी श(cid:10)श (cid:28)!यप से मधुर स$(cid:23)%ध थे और अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(ी पी०ड,लू01 ने अपनी -जरह म(cid:19) जो त(cid:21)य (cid:28)ह(cid:19) ह. उनसे अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण 1वारा दहेज (cid:28)ी माँग (cid:28)रना या अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन प( 1वारा पैसे (cid:28)ा 5दया जाना स%देह से परे सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं है और अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(ीगण ने पैसा देने (cid:28)ी (cid:28)ोई 9त:थ या समय (cid:11)ी अपने सा(cid:17)य म(cid:19) नहीं (cid:28)हा है और न ही पैसे (cid:28)ा ;ोत ही सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या है । अतः ऐसी अव>था म(cid:19) %यायालय यह 9न?(cid:28)@A 9न(cid:28)ालने (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये (cid:23)ाBय है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन प( यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रने म(cid:19) असफल रहा है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण ने मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो पैसे (cid:28)ी मॉग (cid:28)र(cid:28)े या पैसा ले(cid:28)र FताGडत (cid:27)(cid:28)या । जहाँ त(cid:28) धारा-113 (cid:23)ी (cid:11)ा०सा(cid:17)य अ:ध० (cid:28)ी अवधारणा (cid:28)ा Hव%दु है इस Hव%दु पर अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन प( (cid:28)ो यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रना था (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण ने मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA शारीMर(cid:28) एवं मान(cid:10)स(cid:28) Oप से FताGडत (cid:27)(cid:28)या । इस Hव%दु पर मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)े पो>टमाटAम एवं पंचायतनाम(cid:19) म(cid:19) उस(cid:28)े शरीर पर (cid:28)ोई मृJयु पूवA चोट नहीं पायी गयी है। अ(cid:23) यह F!न उठता है (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:9)या %यायालय धारा -113 (cid:23)ी (cid:11)ा०सा(cid:17)य अ:ध० म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)े HवOR (cid:28)ोई अवधारणा (cid:28)र स(cid:28)ती है या नहीं । इस Hव%दु पर अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ी ओर से सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आन इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995-2013 पेज-1167 दुगाA Fसाद आ5द (cid:23)नाम >टेट आफ यू०पी० (cid:28)ो दशाAया गया है -जसम(cid:19) 113 (cid:23)ी (cid:28)े Hव%दु पर माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने यह अवधाMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या (cid:27)(cid:28) दहेज हJया (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त होना चा5हये (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो दहेज (cid:28)ी मॉग (cid:28)ो ले(cid:28)र उस(cid:28)ी मौत से ठी(cid:28) पूवA मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)े साथ Vूरता (cid:28)ो सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या जाना चा5हये । उपरो(cid:9)त मामले म(cid:19) (cid:28)ेवल Fताडना (cid:28)े Hव%दु पर (cid:28)ेवल मौWX(cid:28) (cid:23)यान थे और (cid:28)ोई अ%य सा(cid:17)य नहीं था । ऐसी अव>था म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ो धारा-498 ए,304 (cid:23)ी (cid:11)ा०दं०सं० (cid:28)े अ%तगAत दो@ मु(cid:9)त (cid:28)र 5दया गया और उन(cid:28)े HवOR (cid:28)ोई अवधारण नहीं (cid:28)ी गयी । इसी (cid:10)सRा%त (cid:28)ो 4 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आनं इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995- 2013 म(cid:19) पेज-911 तीरथ (cid:28)ुमारी आ5द (cid:23)नाम >टेट आफ हMरयाणा (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) (cid:11)ी लागू (cid:27)(cid:28)या है। इस(cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आन इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995-2013 पेज-86 हरजीत (cid:10)सहं (cid:23)नाम >टेट आफ पंजा(cid:23) म(cid:19) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु शादी (cid:28)े सात व@A (cid:28)े अ%दर जहर (cid:28)े सेवन से हुयी। पYावली पर (cid:28)ोई ऐसा सा(cid:17)य नहीं था (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA उस(cid:28)े प9त या उस(cid:28)े नातेदारZ ने उस(cid:28)े साथ (cid:28)ोई Vूरता (cid:28)ी हो । इस(cid:10)लये अपीलाथ[/अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:28)े HवOR धारा-113 (cid:23)ी म(cid:19) (cid:28)ोई अवधारणा नहीं (cid:28)ी जा स(cid:28)ी और अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ो दो@ मु(cid:9)त (cid:28)र 5दया गया । इस(cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आन इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995-2013 पेज-869 तरसेम (cid:10)सहं (cid:23)नाम >टेट आफ पंजा(cid:23) (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) अपीलाथ[/ अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:28)ो 304 (cid:23)ी म(cid:19) द-\डत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया था और मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु फासफोरस (cid:28)$पाउ%ड (cid:28)े सेवन से हुयी थी और मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)े शरीर पर अटा]सी म(cid:19) दो चोट(cid:19) (cid:11)ी पायी गयी थीं। अपीलाथ[ /अ(cid:10)(cid:11) (cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त अ%य लोगZ (cid:28)ो दो@ मु(cid:9)त (cid:28)र 5दया गया था। माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने (cid:28)हा (cid:27)(cid:28) अपीलाथ[/अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:28)ो अ(cid:28)ेले मौत (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये -ज$मेदार ठहराना %यायो:चत नहीं है । इस(cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त माननीय उTचतम %यायालय ने सुFीम (cid:28)ोटA आन इ(cid:9)वीटल इन (cid:27)(cid:28)मनल (cid:28)ेसेज-1995-2013 पेज-1212 एवं 1213 टी अOनतपOनजोथी (cid:23)ना >टेट एसएचओ पा-\डचेरी म(cid:19) अवधाMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन (cid:28)ो दहेज हJया (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रना चा5हये (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो उस(cid:28)े प9त व प9त (cid:28)े Mर>तेदारZ 1वारा मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA FताGडत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया हो और यह अवधाMरत (cid:11)ी (cid:27)(cid:28)या (cid:27)(cid:28) अगर (cid:28)ोई FJय( या परो( ऐसा (cid:28)ोई सा(cid:17)य नहीं है तो अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त व उस(cid:28)ी पJनी (cid:28)े (cid:23)ीच अपने वैचाMर(cid:28) मत(cid:11)ेद (cid:28)े आधार पर दहेज हJया यानी 304 (cid:23)ी (cid:28)ा (cid:28)ोई साराशं नहीं 9न(cid:28)ाला जा स(cid:28)ता है। अतः उपरो(cid:9)त दशाAये गये (cid:10)सRा%त %यायालय (cid:28)े सम( इस (cid:28)ेस म(cid:19) लागू होते ह. (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) %यायालय (cid:28)े सम( (cid:28)ेस म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)े 1वारा मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA शारीMर(cid:28) व मान(cid:10)स(cid:28) Oप से FताGडत (cid:28)रना सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं हुआ है इस(cid:10)लय %यायालय यह 9न?(cid:28)@A 9न(cid:28)ालने (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये (cid:23)ाBय है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)े HवOR धारा- 113 (cid:23)ी (cid:11)ा०सा(cid:17)य अ:ध० (cid:28)े अ%तगAत (cid:28)ोई F9त(cid:28)ूल अवधारणा नहीं (cid:28)ी जा स(cid:28)ती है। जहाँ त(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु (cid:28)ा F!न है उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा MरपोटA (cid:28)े अनुसार इ\डोस^फान इ%से-(cid:9)टसाइड (cid:28)े सेवन से हुयी है। इस स$(cid:23)%ध म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ी ओर से त(cid:28)A 5दया गया है (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा MरपोटA (cid:28)ी जॉच Hव!वसनीय नहीं है (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)ी जाँच 6 माह (cid:28)े (cid:23)ाद (cid:28)रायी गयी है। इस स$(cid:23)%ध म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन प( (cid:28)े Hव1वान अ:धव(cid:9)ता (cid:28)ा त(cid:28)A है (cid:27)(cid:28) चूँ(cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा से स$(cid:23)-%धत (cid:27)(cid:28)सी (cid:11)ी अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(ी से (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)े स%द(cid:11)A म(cid:19) -जरह नहीं (cid:28)ी गयी है ऐसी ->थ9त म(cid:19) (cid:23)हस (cid:28)े >तर Hवसरा पर F!न उठाने (cid:28)ा (cid:28)ोई औ:चJय नहीं है । पYावली पर उपल,ध सा(cid:17)य (cid:28)े अवलो(cid:28)न से यह F(cid:28)ट होता है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ी ओर से (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)े मामले म(cid:19) (cid:28)ोई -जरह नहीं (cid:28)ी गयी है ज(cid:23) (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)ी (cid:23)ा(cid:23)त पो>टमाटAम (cid:28)रने वाले डा(cid:9)टर व Hववेच(cid:28) से -जरह (cid:28)रने (cid:28)ा अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)े पास पयाA]त अवसर था। अतः अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ा (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा (cid:28)े स$(cid:23)%ध म(cid:19) त(cid:28)A (cid:23)लहीन है । Hव1वान अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन सा(cid:17)य से यह त(cid:21)य सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं हुआ है (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु से ठी(cid:28) पूवA (cid:27)(cid:28)सी Fताडना (cid:28)ो (cid:28)ाMरत (cid:28)र(cid:28)े (cid:28)ी गयी हो । मृत(cid:28)ा व उस(cid:28)े प9त अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)े अTछे स$(cid:23)%ध थे इस(cid:10)लये इस (cid:23)ात (cid:28)ी स$(cid:11)ावना नहीं है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण ने मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो जहर 5दया हो (cid:9)यZ (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण 1वारा मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो अ>पताल ले जा(cid:28)र उस(cid:28)ा मेGड(cid:28)ल ऐड फराहम (cid:28)रने 5 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 (cid:28)ी (cid:28)ो(cid:10)शश (cid:28)ी गयी जैसा (cid:27)(cid:28) उसने अपने मौWX(cid:28) एवं द>तावेजी सा(cid:17)य से सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या है और उससे पूवA (cid:11)ी मेGड(cid:28)ल पच‘ यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रते ह. (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ा इलाज अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त 1वारा पूवA म(cid:19) (cid:11)ी (cid:28)राया गया और मृत(cid:28)ा अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:28)े साथ 26 माचA 2011 (cid:28)ो लXनउ आयी थी और उस(cid:28)ी मृJयु 4-5-2011 (cid:28)ो हो गयी । अतः इस अव:ध म(cid:19) ऐसा (cid:28)ोई त(cid:21)य सा(cid:17)य म(cid:19) नहीं आया -जससे मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो FताGडत (cid:28)रने (cid:28)ा त(cid:21)य Fतीत हो । अतः मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु (cid:28)ी स$(cid:11)ावनाओं म(cid:19) होमीसाइडल मृJयु (cid:28)ी स$(cid:11)ावना नहीं है (cid:23)-^(cid:28) इस (cid:23)ात (cid:28)ी स$(cid:11)ावना है (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा ने धोXे से इ\डोस^फान Hव@ ले (cid:10)लया हो या घर (cid:28)े अ%दर (cid:27)(cid:28)सी (cid:11)ी (cid:23)ात से तंग आ(cid:28)र उसने इ\डोस^फान Hव@ ले(cid:28)र आJम हJया (cid:28)ी हो। घर (cid:28)े अ%दर इ\डोस^फान इ%से(cid:9)टीसाइड (cid:28)ैसे आया और उस(cid:28)े (cid:22)(cid:23)सरा म(cid:19) इ%से(cid:9)टीसाइड (cid:28)ैसे पाया गया । इन पMर->थ9तयZ (cid:28)ा उ^लेX अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण (cid:28)ो ही (cid:28)रना था। (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) धारा-106 (cid:11)ा०सा(cid:17)य अ:ध० म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त पर सा(cid:17)य (cid:28)ा (cid:11)ार था (cid:27)(cid:28) वह यह सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त (cid:28)रे (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:27)(cid:28)न पMर->थ9तयZ म(cid:19) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)े शरीर म(cid:19) इ%डोस^फान Hव@ (cid:28)ैसे पहुँचा। (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु उस(cid:28)े Hववाह (cid:28)े सात व@A (cid:28)े अ%दर अFा(cid:28)ृ9त(cid:28) Oप से उस(cid:28)े 9नवास >थान पर हुयी है। अतः ऐसी अव>था म(cid:19) धारा-113 ए (cid:11)ारतीय सा(cid:17)य अ:ध9नयम म(cid:19) FाHवधान है (cid:27)(cid:28) ज(cid:23) यह F!न है (cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:27)(cid:28)सी >Yी 1वारा आJमहJया (cid:28)ा (cid:28)रना उस(cid:28)े प9त या उस(cid:28)े प9त (cid:28)े (cid:27)(cid:28)सी नातेदार 1वारा दु?FेMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया है और यह द(cid:10)शAत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया है (cid:27)(cid:28) उसने अपने Hववाह (cid:28)ी तारीX से सात व@A (cid:28)ी अव:ध (cid:28)े (cid:11)ीतर आJमहJया (cid:28)ी थी और यह (cid:27)(cid:28) उस(cid:28)े प9त या उस(cid:28)े प9त (cid:28)े ऐसे नातेदार ने उस(cid:28)े F9त Vूरता (cid:28)ी थी, तो %यायालय मामले (cid:28)ी स(cid:11)ी अ%य पMर->थ9तयZ (cid:28)ो Bयान म(cid:19) रXते हुये यह उपधारणा (cid:28)र स(cid:28)ेगा (cid:27)(cid:28) ऐसी आJमहJया उस(cid:28)े प9त या उस(cid:28)े प9त (cid:28)े ऐसे नातेदार 1वारा दु?FेMरत (cid:28)ी गयी थी । अतः उपरो(cid:9)त FाHवधान (cid:28)े F(cid:28)ाश म(cid:19) %यायालय (cid:28)ी राय म(cid:19) मृत(cid:28)ा ने अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)े साथ Fेम Hववाह (cid:27)(cid:28)या था और वह मृJयु (cid:28)े समय Fसव अव>था म(cid:19) थी -जस(cid:28)ी देX(cid:11)ाल (cid:28)ी पूरी -ज$मेदारी नूर आलम पर थी। अतः ऐसी अव>था म(cid:19) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी देX(cid:11)ाल अTछी तरह से नहीं (cid:28)र स(cid:28)ा और (cid:28)ोई ऐसी घटना घर (cid:28)े अ%दर अव!य हुयी -जससे Hवच(cid:10)लत हो(cid:28)र मृत(cid:28)ा ने इ\डोस^फान Hव@ (cid:28)ा सेवन (cid:28)र (cid:10)लया। मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ी मृJयु अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)े घर पर हुयी है और उस(cid:28)े नातेदारZ म(cid:19) उस(cid:28)े (cid:11)ाई शा5हद और उस(cid:28)ी (cid:11)ा(cid:11)ी फरीदा (cid:28)ो अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त (cid:23)नाया गया है। अ(cid:23) यह F!न उठता है (cid:27)(cid:28) मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो (cid:27)(cid:28)स F(cid:28)ार (cid:27)(cid:28)स(cid:28)े 1वारा आJमहJया (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये FेMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया। इस Hव%दु पर %यायालय स(cid:11)ी (cid:28)ेस (cid:28)ी पMर->थ9तयZ एवं त(cid:21)यZ (cid:28)ो देXते हुये (cid:28)ेवल अवधारणा ही (cid:28)र स(cid:28)ती है । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ा प9त था इस(cid:10)लये उस(cid:28)ी यह (cid:28)ानूनी व नै9त(cid:28) -ज$मेदारी थी (cid:27)(cid:28) वह मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ा bयाल रXता अतः वह अपने दा9यJव (cid:28)ा 9नवAहन (cid:28)रने म(cid:19) असफल रहा। इस(cid:28)े अ9तMर(cid:9)त जहाँ त(cid:28) सह अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)ा F!न है तो वह अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)ा (cid:23)डा (cid:11)ाई व (cid:11)ावज है और मृत(cid:28)ा उन(cid:28)े साथ 26-3-2011 से घटना (cid:28)ी 5दनां(cid:28) 4-5-2011 त(cid:28) रही (cid:9)यZ(cid:27)(cid:28) Hववाह (cid:28)े (cid:23)ाद अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम और मृत(cid:28)ा 5द^ली व (cid:23)ागपत (cid:23)डौत चले गये थे । इस दौरान अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त शा5हद व उस(cid:28)ी पJनी फरीदा से न तो पMरवादीप( से (cid:28)ोई (cid:23)ातचीत होना सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त है और उन(cid:28)े 1वारा मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ा bयाल रXना ए(cid:28) नै9त(cid:28) दा9यJव था । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)योजन (cid:28)ी ओर से इन दोनो (cid:28)े HवOR इन(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ोई ओवर ए(cid:9)ट सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं हुआ है -जससे यह अवधारणा 9न(cid:28)ाली जा स(cid:28)े (cid:27)(cid:28) इन(cid:28)े (cid:27)(cid:28)सी (cid:28)ृJय 1वारा मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो आJमहJया (cid:28)े दु?FेMरत (cid:27)(cid:28)या गया हो । ऐसी ->थ9त म(cid:19) %यायालय अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण फरीदा व शा5हद (cid:28)े HवOR मृत(cid:28)ा (cid:28)ो 6 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 आJमहJया (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये FेMरत (cid:28)रने (cid:28)ा (cid:28)ोई F9त(cid:28)ूल अवधारणा (cid:28)रना %यायो:चत समझती है । अतः %यायालय अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)ो स%देह (cid:28)ा ला(cid:11) देना %यायो:चत समझती है । अतः उपरो(cid:9)त सा(cid:17)य (cid:28)े Hववेचन से %यायालय इस 9न?(cid:28)@A पर पहुँची है (cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण नूर आलम, शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)े HवOR धारा-498 ए,304 (cid:23)ी एवं 302/34 (cid:11)ा०दं०सं० तथा धारा-4 दहेज F9त@ेध अ:ध9नयम (cid:28)ा आरोप स%देह से परे सा(cid:22)(cid:23)त नहीं हुआ है और वे उपरो(cid:9)त आरोHपत आरोप से दो@मु(cid:9)त (cid:27)(cid:28)ये जाने योdय है । (cid:27)(cid:28)%तु अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)े HवOR %यायालय 1वारा यह 9न?(cid:28)@A 9न(cid:28)ाला गया है (cid:27)(cid:28) नूर आलम 1वारा दु?FेMरत (cid:28)रने पर उस(cid:28)ी पJनी शशी (cid:28)!यप ने आJमहJया (cid:28)ी । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण नूर आलम, शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)ो धारा-498 ए,304 (cid:23)ी एवं 302 (cid:11)ा०दं०सं० तथा धारा-4 दहेज F9त@ेध अ:ध9नयम (cid:28)े आरोप से दो@मु(cid:9)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या जाता है । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त शा5हद %या9य(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)र(ा म(cid:19) -जला (cid:28)ारागार म(cid:19) है । अतः वह अ%य (cid:27)(cid:28)सी आरोप म(cid:19) वां9छत न हो तो उसे Mरहा (cid:27)(cid:28)या जावे । Mरहाई आदेश -जला (cid:28)ारागार FेH@त (cid:27)(cid:28)या जावे । चूँ(cid:27)(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण शा5हद व फरीदा (cid:28)ो उपरो(cid:9)त आरोHपत अपराध म(cid:19) दो@मु(cid:9)त (cid:27)(cid:28)या जा चु(cid:28)ा है । उपरो(cid:9)त अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)तगण / अपीलाथ[गण (cid:28)ो आदे(cid:10)शत (cid:27)(cid:28)या जाता है (cid:27)(cid:28) वे ए(cid:28) स]ताह (cid:28)े अ%दर धारा-437 ए दं०F०सं० (cid:28)े अ%तगAत इस 9नणAय एवं आदेश (cid:28)े HवOR अपील समयाव:ध समा]त होने त(cid:28) (cid:28)े (cid:10)लये FJये(cid:28) 1व ाारा (cid:23)ीस-(cid:23)ीस हजार Oपये (cid:28)े fय-(cid:9)तगत (cid:23)%धपY एवं समान रा(cid:10)श (cid:28)े दो F9त(cid:11)ू इस आशय से F>तुत (cid:28)रेग(cid:19) (cid:27)(cid:28) य5द इस 9नणAय एवं आदेश (cid:28)े HवOR राgय (cid:28)ी ओर से माननीय उTच %यायालय (cid:28)े सम( (cid:28)ोई अपील F>तुत (cid:28)ी जाती है तो वह अपीलीय %यायालय (cid:28)े सम( उप->थत होग(cid:19)। अतः अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)ो धारा-306 (cid:11)ा०दं०सं० (cid:28)े आरोप (cid:28)ा दो@ी ठहराया जाता है । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त जमानत पर है उस(cid:28)े जमानत पY एवं (cid:23)%धपY 9नर>त (cid:27)(cid:28)ये जाते ह. और उन(cid:28)े F9त(cid:11)ूगण (cid:28)ो दा9यJव से उ%मो:चत (cid:27)(cid:28)या जाता है । अ(cid:10)(cid:11)यु(cid:9)त नूर आलम (cid:28)ो %या9य(cid:28) अ(cid:10)(cid:11)र(ा म(cid:19) (cid:10)लया जावे । द\ड (cid:28)े F!न पर सुनने हेतु पYावली 5दनां(cid:28)-14-11- 2013 (cid:28)ो F>तुत हो ।" In the aforesaid background of the case, the counsel for the 11. appellant has submitted that considering the facts of the case, according to which the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of marriage and the findings/observations recorded by the trial court for the purposes of convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. as also the spirit of Section 113-A and 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also that the appellant has already undergone about 30 months imprisonment and further that the incident is of 4th May, 2011, he does not want to press the appeal on merits and he is confining his prayer only with regard to reducing of sentence to the period already undergone.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused- appellant has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is 7 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 not impeaching the judgment and order of conviction and is confining his submission in the appeal only with respect to the order of sentence. It is for the reason that deceased, wife of the appellant, committed suicide within seven years of marriage and this aspect of the case was established by medical evidence and also that appellant has already spent about 30 months (02 years and 06 months). During trial he remained in jail for 24 months, as mentioned in the order on sentence dated 18.11.2023 and after conviction he was taken into custody on 13.11.2013 and was released on bail in terms of order of this Court dated 03.12.3013. The order dated 03.12.2013 is extracted herein under :- "(Crl. Misc. Application No.110129 of 2013) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months under section 306 I.P.C. together with a fine of Rs.20,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo three months additional imprisonment. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the terms of the bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail on the ground that death is unnatural and within seven years of the marriage. The sentence is only three years and six months and that is why the appellant was not released on bail during trial under Section 306 I.P.C. and appellant is in jail. Let appellant (Noor Alam @ Babu) be released on bail in Sessions Trial No.766/2011, Crime No.92/2011, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Vikash Nagar, District-Lucknow, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, provided he shall deposit half of the fine within two months from the date of order and rest half of the fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal." It is also stated that in the case of Paranagouda and another Vs. 13. State of Karnataka and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369, the conviction was modified by acquitting the appellants therein for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and convicting them for the offence under Section 306 and 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The relevant paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment are extracted hereunder:- "37. In the aforesaid background and the evidence on record as already noticed by us hereinabove, it can be safely noted that High Court ought to have examined as to whether accused could have been convicted for an offence for which no charge was framed and not undertaking of such an exercise would result in failure of justice? Thus, it will have to be seen from the facts unfolded in the 8 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 present case as to whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which they are being tried and whether the main facts sought to be established against them were explained to them clearly and whether they got a fair chance to defend themselves. If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessarily this Court will have to proceed further and examine as to whether accused can be convicted for the offence not charged and if the answer is in the negative it would result in acquittal of the accused for said offence. In the instant case the dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused person on account of which she committed suicide. It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by self- immolation. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though charge was not framed. The accused (appellant Nos.1 and 2) are now aged about 66 and 61 years respectively. They have already spent one year, one month and 27 days in prison. They do not have any past history of criminal record. Hence, a lenient view has to be taken while imposing the sentence. 38. For the reasons afore-stated the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court in SC No.35 of 2011 dated 14.09.2012 as affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.2847 of 2012 by judgment dated 20.07.2022 is hereby modified. The appellants are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default to pay the fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of the offence."
14. Learned A.G.A. Shri Badrul Hasan on the other hand opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the court below and keeping in view the evidence on record, accused-appellant has been rightly convicted.
15. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
16. That it is noteworthy that the incident took place way back in the year 2011. The accused-appellant has suffered in the matter for the past about 19 years and there is no any criminal antecedent of him during these years, as stated and which has not been refuted.
17. Considering the aforesaid and also the facts and evidence on record including the testimonies of witnesses of fact namely Complainant/Ram Prasad Kashyap (PW-1), Smt. Sita Kashyap (PW-2), medical and expert opinion, which indicates that deceased committed suicide within 07 years of marriage, and also the relevant provisions of law and settled proposition on the issue and also the period lapsed from the date of incident i.e. about 19 years as also the punishment/sentence 9 CRLA No. - 1716 of 2013 awarded to the accused-appellant under Section 306 IPC, which is justified, I am of the view that lenient view has to be taken with regard to sentence of the appellant. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeal is allowed in part. The 18. judgment and order of conviction dated order 18.11.2013, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow in Session No.776 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2011, under Section- 306 IPC, Police Station - Vikas Nagar, District - Lucknow is hereby modified. The appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. 30 months, with a fine of Rs.20000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The accused-appellant shall deposit the fine within three months
19. from today, if already not deposited. In case of breach of the above condition, the appellant shall be
20. taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him. The appellant is stated to be on bail, his personal bond is cancelled
21. and sureties are discharged.
22. Let a copy of this judgment and record be sent forthwith to the trial court concerned for compliance. November 13, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench