# Deepak @ Pilla & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 144
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5169 of 2003
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-pilla-anr-v-state-of-u-p-50546
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections
498-A
&
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 -
Appeal
against
conviction
-
Life
imprisonment with fine - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Dowry
death - Deceased died within seven years
of her marriage - Husband of deceased
and her in-laws took due care in taking
her to hospital, informed her family
members
about
incident
-
Family
members of deceased present till parents
of
deceased
arrived
at
hospital
-
Regarding allegation of demand of dowry
by
husband
and
brother-in-law,
no
specific date, time or place was attributed
to them. (Para 2, 22 to 24)
Discord arose in marital life of deceased
on account of role played by her brotherin-law - Discord went to extent of lodging
of complaint, after compromise, issue
resolved - On account of objection of inlaws in visits of deceased to house of her
brother-in-law, she committed suicide -
No
specific
allegations
of
physical
harassment or torture by in-laws of
deceased - No injury marks on body of
deceased - Poison found in viscera report,
supports defence version - Testimony of
mother
of
deceased
acknowledging
objection
of
in-laws,
not
examined
carefully - Impugned order, set aside.
(Para 26, 27)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

## Text

144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 8 ILRA 144
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5169 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal No. 5259 of 2003

Deepak @ Pilla & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Manish Tandon

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections
498-A
&
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 -
Appeal
against
conviction
-
Life
imprisonment with fine - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Dowry
death - Deceased died within seven years
of her marriage - Husband of deceased
and her in-laws took due care in taking
her to hospital, informed her family
members
about
incident
-
Family
members of deceased present till parents
of
deceased
arrived
at
hospital
-
Regarding allegation of demand of dowry
by
husband
and
brother-in-law,
no
specific date, time or place was attributed
to them. (Para 2, 22 to 24)
Discord arose in marital life of deceased
on account of role played by her brotherin-law - Discord went to extent of lodging
of complaint, after compromise, issue
resolved - On account of objection of inlaws in visits of deceased to house of her
brother-in-law, she committed suicide -
No
specific
allegations
of
physical
harassment or torture by in-laws of
deceased - No injury marks on body of
deceased - Poison found in viscera report,
supports defence version - Testimony of
mother
of
deceased
acknowledging
objection
of
in-laws,
not
examined
carefully - Impugned order, set aside.
(Para 26, 27)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.)

1. As per the office report, appellant
No. 2, Ganga Sagar Tiwari in Criminal
Appeal No. 5169 of 2003, who has been
convicted in Session Trial No. 1453 of
2000, State Vs. Udai Narain and others,
arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2000,
under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read
with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur
Nagar and sentenced to life imprisonment,
had died on 04.10.2009. Learned counsel
for the appellant also supports such
statement. In that view of the matter,
Criminal Appeal No. 5169 of 2003 abates
as against appellant No. 2-Ganga Sagar
Tiwari.

2. As per the office report, appellant
No. 1-Lakhan @ Satya Narain in Criminal
Appeal No. 5259 of 2003, who has been
convicted in Session Trial No. 1453 of
2000, State Vs. Udai Narain and others,
arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2000,
under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read
with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur
Nagar and sentenced to life imprisonment,
had died on 03.12.2021. Learned counsel
for the appellant also supports such
statement. In that view of the matter,
Criminal Appeal No. 5259 of 2003 abates
8 All. Deepak @ Pilla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
145
as against appellant No. 1-Lakhan @ Satya
Narain.

3. These two appeals have been filed
challenging the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the court below dated
17.09.2003 in Sessions Trial No. 1453 of
2000, State Vs. Udai Narain and others,
arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2000,
under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read
with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur
Nagar. By the impugned judgment the trial
court has convicted and sentenced four
accused,
namely,
Deepak
alias
Pilla
(Devar), Ganga Sagar Tiwari (father-inlaw), Lakhan alias Satya Narain (Devar)
and Udai Narain @ Kallu (husband).

4. The appeals at the instance of
Ganga Sagar Tiwari and Lakhan @ Satya
Narain have been dismissed as having
abated on account of their death. Thus,
these two appeals, therefore, survive at the
instance of Deepak alias Pilla (Devar) and
Udai Narain @ Kallu (husband of the
deceased).

5. By the impugned judgment, the
accused-appellants, Deepak alias Pilla
(Devar)
and
Udai
Narain
@
Kallu
(husband)
have
been
convicted
and
sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment
under Section 304-B I.P.C., three years
rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 498-A I.P.C.
and on failure to deposit the fine to undergo
additional simple imprisonment for three
months
each;
two
years
simple
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.
2,000/- each under Section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and on failure to deposit the
fine
to
undergo
additional
simple
imprisonment for two months each; and
two years simple imprisonment along with
a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act and on failure to
deposit the fine to undergo additional
simple imprisonment for two months each.

6. Informant, who happens to be the
father of the deceased, has given a written
report on 10th of March, 2000 (Ex.Ka.1),
stating that he had married his daughter
with Udai Narain @ Kallu on 12.06.1995
as per Hindu traditions after giving
adequate dowry as per his capabilities.
After marriage the accused demanded
dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and a gold chain on
account of which the deceased was
harassed and tortured. Such facts were
disclosed by the deceased when she came
to her house. The informant requested the
accused not to harass his daughter since he
has no means to arrange such dowry. A
complaint was also given to the Incharge
S.H.O., Civil Lines on 17.08.1998. On
07.03.2000 the in-laws of the deceased
informed the first informant that his
daughter is unwell and is hospitalized in
K.P. Ganj Hospital. On receiving such
information he came to the hospital along
with his wife and found his daughter dead.
Apprehension has been expressed that the
deceased was done to death by the accused
by administering some poison on account
of dowry. Based on such written report a
first information report came to be lodged
as Case Crime No. 150 of 2000, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The
deceased was hospitalized at 09:10 a.m. on
07.03.2000 by the husband of the deceased.
The deceased ultimately died at 04:55 p.m.
on 07.03.2000. Inquest, however, was
conducted on 09.03.2000 at 12:30 in the
afternoon. The inquest report records that
information with regard to the death of the
deceased was received on 07.03.2000 at
06:05 p.m. Father of the deceased, Hari
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shankar and brother of the deceased were
witnesses of inquest. In order to ascertain
the cause of death the inquest witnesses
opined that postmortem be conducted.
Body of the deceased was sealed and sent
along
with
the
police
papers
for
postmortem which was also conducted on
09.03.2000
at
02:30
p.m.
In
the
postmortem report the deceased is found to
be a 24 years old lady. Cause of death
could not be ascertained and the viscera
was preserved. No injuries, however,
have been found on the body of the
deceased.
The
viscera
report
dated
03.08.2000 has been brought on record,
as per which Baygon insecticide was
found in the viscera and, therefore, cause
of death is determined as poisoning.
Statements of witnesses were recorded,
whereafter charge sheet came to be
submitted against the four accused on
08.07.2000.
The
Magistrate
took
cognizance and committed the case to the
court of Sessions, where it got registered
as Session Trial No. 1453 of 2000.

7. Charges were framed by the court
of Sessions on 06.01.2001 against the four
accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C.
read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. The accused denied the charges and
demanded trial.

8. At the stage of trial the prosecution
has
adduced
following
documentary
evidence:

(i) F.I.R. dated 10.03.2000 (Ex.
Ka.-4),
(ii)
Written
Report
dated
10.03.2000 (Ex. Ka.-1), (iii) Postmortem
Report dated 09.03.2000 (Ex. Ka.-3), (iv)
Inquest Report dated 09.03.2000 (Ex. Ka.-
2), (v) Chargesheet dated 08.07.2000 (Ex.
Ka.-10) and (vi) Site Plan with Index dated
14.03.2000 (Ex. Ka.-11).

9. In addition to above, oral
testimonies have also been brought on
record by the family members of the
deceased.

10. P.W.1 happens to be the father of
the deceased has been examined and in his
examination-in-chief he has supported the
prosecution case with regard to the
marriage having been solemnized on
12.06.1995, as also claim of demand of
dowry from the deceased. It is also alleged
that the deceased was harassed since
desired items were not given to the accused
persons. P.W.1 has proved the inquest and
asserted that the last rites were performed
by him. He has also admitted that
information with regard to the illness of his
daughter was received from the in-laws of
the deceased. In his cross-examination,
P.W.1 has admitted that marriage was
solemnized without any dowry item given
to the in-laws, the deceased happily went to
her in-laws' house, however, father-in-law
of the deceased demanded gold chain as it
was required to have been given during
marriage and one of the ceremonies. He has
also admitted that there was no complaint
made by the deceased against her in-laws.
In his further cross-examination, P.W.1 has
stated that demand of gold chain was made
after an year of marriage and apart from it
no other demand was made. Allegations,
however, of ill treatment are made against
the father-in-law. The deceased has left
behind a two and half year old daughter
who is living with her father and grand
father. This witness has denied the
suggestion that the deceased has illicit
relations with her brother-in-law (Jeeja) at
whose place she previously lived for a quite
sometime at Shuklaganj and it was on
account of such dispute that the deceased
actually committed suicide by consuming
poison. P.W.1 has referred an incident of
8 All. Deepak @ Pilla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
147
1998 when the dispute between the
deceased and her husband (Udai Narain @
Kallu) was resolved at Chakeri Police
Station.

11. Mother of the deceased, Smt.
Manorama, has appeared as P.W.2. In her
examination-in-chief she has alleged that
marriage was solemnized 5-6 years back in
which dowry items were given and her
younger daughter had also accompanied the
deceased to her in-laws place. The younger
daughter of P.W.2 remained in in-laws
house of the deceased for about one and
half
months.
The
younger
daughter
complained about the bad habits of fatherin-law, who would often make lured
remarks against the deceased. In her crossexamination, P.W.2 has reiterated the
demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and a
gold chain. P.W.2 has further asserted
during cross-examination that the marriage
of deceased was arranged by Sunil Chandra
Bajpayee, who happened to be the elder
son in-law and was residing at Shuklaganj.
She has stated that there was no dowry
given at the time of marriage and that the
deceased
had
made
no
grievance/
complaint with regard to the dowry. P.W.2
has also referred to some incident which
took place two years after the marriage in
which a report was lodged at Police Station
Chakeri, where a compromise was arrived
at. This witness has denied the suggestion
that in-laws of the deceased objected to
visits of deceased to Shuklaganj or that the
deceased
regularly
visits
Shuklaganj
against the wishes of her in-laws. This
witness has admitted that the in-laws of the
deceased had objected to her visits to
Shuklaganj and it was in that context that
the dispute occurred and was resolved at
Police Station Chakeri. The statement of
P.W.2 in that regard is extracted hereinafter:

;g lgh gS fd izkph ds llqjky okyks
us izkph dks 'kqDyk xat tkus ls euk fd;k FkkA
bldk le>kSrk izkph dh 'kknh ds nks lky ckn
gqvk Fkk pdsjh Fkkus es gqvk Fkk le>kSrs ds ckn
izkphZ 'kqDyk xat ugh tkrh Fkh izkph ds ifr gh
'kqDyk xat ysdj tkrs FksA esjs lkeus izkph vius
ifr ds lkFk 'kqDyk xat dHkh ugh xbZA

12. Younger sister of the deceased,
Smt. Priti @ Binti has appeared as P.W.3,
who has made allegations against the
father-in-law of the deceased. This witness
has also referred to the involvement of
brother-in-law of the deceased, who lived
at Shuklaganj and was in the affairs with
the deceased.

13. P.W.4 is Dr. P. V. S. Chauhan, who
conducted postmortem and has proved the
postmortem report. P.W.5 is a formal
witness, who is an employee of the police
department and has proved the police
papers. P.W.6 is also a formal witness, who
has proved the inquest proceedings.

14. P.W.7 is the brother of the
deceased and has made allegations with
regard to the demand of dowry by the inlaws of the deceased. In his crossexamination he has admitted that marriage
of the deceased was got solemnized by his
brother-in-law residing at Shuklaganj and
has admitted that the deceased often used to
visit at Shuklaganj. This witness has also
received information about the death of the
deceased
from
his
brother-in-law
at
Shuklaganj. Although a previous complaint
is alleged to have been made but details in
respect thereof has not been produced.

15. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer,
who has proved the F.S.L. report, as per
which the viscera of the deceased contained
Baygon insecticide. He has also explained
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
various steps which have been taken during
the course of investigation.

16. On the basis of evidence collected
by the prosecution the statement of accused
has been recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. The accused have denied their
involvement and have asserted that they
have been falsely implicated. A specific
case has been set up of illicit relations
between the deceased and her brother-inlaw who lived at Shuklaganj, on account of
which she allegedly committed suicide. It
has also been alleged by the accused,
Deepak alias Pilla that on objecting to the
relations of deceased with her brother-inlaw she committed suicide.

17. A defence evidence has been
adduced on behalf of appellants as a
testimony of D.W.1-Shiv Kumar, who has
alleged that no dowry was given at the time
of marriage. This defence witness is a
neighbour and claims to know the family
members of the accused for the last 15
years. He has alleged that the deceased had
consumed poison and after facts came to
have been notice of the family members the
deceased was rushed to the hospital by her
in-laws. Same statement has been made by
Samar Singh, who has appeared as D.W.2.

18. The trial court on the basis of
evidence led in the matter has come to
conclusion that the charges levelled against
the accused are proved inasmuch as the
marriage has been performed within seven
years seven years of the date of death
which occurred in unnatural circumstances
and that there was a demand of dowry. The
appellants
have
been
convicted
and
sentenced as per above.

19. Shri Manish Tandon appearing for
the appellants submits that it is a case of
suicide by the deceased on account of an
objection raised by her in-laws to her
relations with her brother-in-law.

20. Learned counsel further submits
that, in fact, no dowry was ever demanded
nor was paid and all such allegations have
been
levelled,
subsequently,
as
an
afterthought merely to implicate the family
members, after the deceased committed
suicide.

21. Learned A.G.A. for the State, on the
other hand, contends that the evidence on
record may prove the commissioning of
offence for which the accused-appellants
have been charged and convicted by the
Court below and that the appeal itself has no
merit.

22. We have heard both the parties and
perused the material on record. It is not in
dispute that the marriage of the deceased was
solemnized with accused Udai Narain @
Kallu on 12.06.1995. The deceased has died
on 07.03.2000 and, therefore, the death of the
deceased is within seven years. It is also
admitted from the viscera report that the cause
of death is poisoning. Prosecution witnesses
have also alleged that there was a demand of
dowry on account of which the deceased has
been done to death. The defence, however, has
come out with a distinct version of the
incident, according to which, the deceased
used to visit her brother-in-law at Shuklaganj
on account of which there were differences
between the deceased and her husband, on
account of which, she ultimately committed
suicide. On the basis of evidence adduced by
the parties, this Court is, therefore, primarily
required to determine as to whether this is a
case of homicidal death or suicide?

23. We have perused the postmortem
report which clearly goes to show that there
8 All. Deepak @ Pilla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
149
existed no injury on the body of the
deceased, when the postmortem was
conducted. The evidence on record further
goes to show that the deceased was taken to
the hospital at about 09:10 a.m. on 7th
March, 2000 by the husband of the
deceased. This is clearly reflected from the
treatment card which has been duly proved
by the I.O., i.e., P.W.-8. The prosecution
witnesses have clearly admitted that the
information of illness of deceased was
given to her father and other family
members on 7th March itself and they also
arrived at the hospital on the same evening.
It appears that the family members of
deceased were at the hospital while the
deceased
was
receiving
the
medical
attention, this is clearly reflected from the
statement of P.W.-7, who happens to be the
brother of the deceased. Similar statement
has been made by P.W.-1 also. These facts
taken cumulatively gives an indication that
the husband of the deceased as well as her
in-laws took due care in taking her to the
hospital and also informed the family
members of the deceased about the
incident. It is also admitted that family
members of the deceased were present till
the parents of the deceased arrived at the
hospital. It is thereafter that the body of the
deceased was retained by the parents who
later lodged the report.

24. So far as the demand of dowry by
the father-in-law and husband is concerned,
the
allegation
made
by
prosecution
witnesses is contradictory and vague. P.W.-
1 and P.W.-2, who are the parents of the
deceased, at one stage, have alleged
demand of dowry from them but in the
same statement have also stated that the
marriage was solemnized without any
dowry and that the deceased was happily
living with her in-laws. The demand of
gold chain is attributed to the father-in-law
of the deceased and such demand is alleged
to have been made a year after the
marriage. So far as, father-in-law is
concerned, he has already died. Most of the
allegations have been levelled by the other
prosecution witnesses against father-in-law
of the deceased and since he has already
died, we are not required to examine such
allegations in any further detail. So far as
the demand of dowry by husband and the
brother-in-law is concerned, the allegation
is absolutely vague and contradictory. No
specific date, time or place for such
demand of dowry from the husband is
attributed to husband or brother-in-law. We
are, therefore, not impressed by the
evidence on record with regard to demand
of dowry by the husband and brother-inlaw. So far as brother-in-law Deepak alias
Pilla is concerned, none of the witnesses
have ever referred to his name for any
specific allegation of demand of dowry by
him.

25. We have also examined the
records and we find that the role of brotherin-law of deceased figures prominently
right from the stage of the marriage of the
deceased. The prosecution witnesses have
admitted that the marriage was arranged by
the brother-in-law of deceased who lived at
Shuklaganj. It is also admitted that the
deceased had stayed for several years in the
house of her brother-in-law at Shuklaganj.
It appears that there was an issue with
regard to frequent visit of deceased to
Shuklaganj at the house of her brother-inlaw. Mother of the deceased has admitted
that
frequent
visits
of
deceased
to
Shuklaganj was the cause of marital
discord, in respect of which, a complaint
was made at police station Chakeri and a
compromise was worked out as per which
the deceased was not allowed to go to
Shuklaganj alone and, whenever, she visits
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
her
brother-in-law,
she
would
be
accompanied by her husband. The mother
of deceased has also admitted that in-laws
of the deceased did not like the act of
deceased's
visiting
her
brother-in-law
frequently to Shuklaganj. This fact is more
or less admitted to all the prosecution
witnesses. The specific defence pleaded by
the accused is that the deceased had
relations with her brother-in-law and as her
in-laws objected her frequent visit to the
brother-in-law, she committed suicide in a
fit of anger. Defence witnesses have also
supported such claim by stating that the
marriage,
otherwise,
was
solemnized
between the parties without any demand of
dowry.

26. We have carefully examined the
two versions which have surfaced on
record before us and in view of the
admission made by the prosecution
witnesses, we are inclined to accept the
defence version that there was a discord
in the marital life of the deceased on
account of the role played by her brotherin-law residing at Shuklaganj. It is also
admitted that the discord went to the
extent of lodging of a police complaint
and it was only after a compromise
worked out at the police station when the
issue
ultimately
was
resolved.
The
defence version that it was on account of
such objection of the in-laws in the visits
of deceased to the house of her brotherin-law that she committed suicide has
been probabilized on the basis of
evidence led by the defence. Even
otherwise, we find that there are no
specific
allegations
of
physical
harassment or torture by the in-laws of
the deceased, which may have caused her
death. The fact that there are no injury
marks on the body of the deceased,
supports such view of ours. The fact that
poison has been found in the viscera
report, therefore, clearly supports the
defence
version
as
per
which
the
deceased committed suicide.

27. Trial Court while convicting and
sentencing the accused, has not carefully
examined the evidence on record and that
testimony
of
mother
of
deceased
acknowledging the objection of in-laws
in frequent visits to Shuklaganj has
been overlooked. The fact that there
were no previous complaints and no
marks
of
physical
injury
on
the
deceased have also been worked out.
The trial Court, therefore, fell in error
in
accepting
the
prosecution
case
without subjecting the testimony of
witnesses of a careful analysis. In that
view of the matter, we set aside the
finding of the Court below, as per
which, the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.

28. Consequently, these appeals
succeed and are allowed. Judgment and
order dated 17.09.2003 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in
Sessions Trial No. 1453 of 2000, State
Vs. Udai Narain and others, arising out of
Case Crime No. 150 of 2000, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur
Nagar, is set aside. The appellants are
acquitted from the charges of offence.
Since the appellants, Deepak alias Pilla
and Udai Narain @ Kallu have already
been released on bail, as such, their
sureties and bonds shall stand discharged
subject to compliance of Section 437A
Cr.P.C.
----------
8 All. Jeetu Vs. State of U.P.
151
(2023) 8 ILRA 151
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5220 of 2021
With
Criminal Appeal No. 5221 of 2021

Jeetu ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Sri Ashwini Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, Sri
Sunil Kumar Yadav, Sri Yogesh Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 302/34 - Punishment for murder -
Appeal
against
conviction
-
Life
imprisonment with fine - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 - As per
complaint,
deceased
was
called
by
appellants to settle dispute, set ablaze by
appellants at house which was sold by
appellants to deceased but possession
was not given to her. (Para 2, 3, 4)

Death
caused
by
accused
not
premeditated, accused had no intention to
cause death, injuries sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to have caused death -
Incident occurred on spur of moment
when deceased demanded money for
house - Evidence of P.W.- 1 doesn't testify
this fact - P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 didn't
support prosecution - P.W.-4 expressed
ignorance about knowing co-accused -
Medical
evidence
proved
deep
burn
injuries which was 40% on body, both
hands, chest, stomach and thorax region
had burn injuries - Homicidal death not
amounting to murder - Incident occurred
in house of co-accused, dying declaration
truthful,
not
case
of
circumstantial
evidence
-
Deceased
was
taken
for
treatment at hospital by P.W.-2, facts led
to alter sentence. (Para 13, 15)

Appeals partly allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Maniben Vs St. of Guj., 2009 LawSuit (SC)
1380

2. Bengai Mandal @ Begai Mandal Vs St. of
Bihar, 2010 (1) Supreme 49

3. Chirra Shivraj Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh, 2010
LawSuit (SC) 843

4. Smt. Rama Devi alias Ramakanti Vs St. of U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No.1438 of 2010) decided on
7.10.2017

5. Banwari & Another Vs St. of U.P., (Criminal
Appeal No.26 of 2007) decided on 20.8.2015

6. Pramod Kumar Vs. St. of U.P., (Criminal
Appeal No.318 of 2015) decided on 28.2.2019

7. Tukaram and Ors Vs St. of Mah., reported in
(2011) 4 SCC 250

8. B.N. Kavatakar & anr. Vs St. of Karn.,
reported in 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304

9. Veeran & ors. Vs St. of M.P. Decided, (2011)
5 SCR 300

10. Gautam Manubhai Makwana Vs St. of Guj.,
(Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2008) decided on
11.9.2013, (Para 12 to 17)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellant and
learned A.G.A. for the State.