# Heeralal v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1120
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-23
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/heeralal-v-state-of-u-p-43737
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Ingredients - Proof - Presumption - Penal Code, 1860 -
Ss. 304-B, 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - S. 4 - Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 113-B

Death of a married woman within seven years of marriage - Death caused by strangulation and hence
otherwise than under normal circumstances - Evidence of dowry demand and cruelty by husband -
Deceased informing her brothers about harassment and dowry demand shortly before death - Live and
proximate link between cruelty and death established - All essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC proved
- Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act attracted - Failure of accused to rebut presumption -
Conviction upheld.
(Paras 22, 23, 24, 26, 30-32)

"Soon Before Death" - Meaning and Application
5 All. Heeralal Vs State Of U.P.

1121
Expression "soon before her death" does not mean immediately before death - Proximity test satisfied where
deceased visited her parental home 2-3 days prior to death and complained of dowry demand and cruelty -
Continuity of harassment established - Requirement under Section 304-B IPC fulfilled.
(Paras 23, 24)

Medical Evidence - Corroboration of Prosecution Case

Post-mortem report revealing contusion on neck, fractured hyoid bone and congestion of trachea - Cause of
death opined as asphyxia due to strangulation - Injuries ante-mortem - Clearly establishes unnatural death
- Medical evidence fully corroborates oral testimony of prosecution witnesses.
(Paras 6, 7, 26)

Conduct of Accused - Abscondence - Evidentiary Value

Accused husband remained missing for 10-12 days after disappearance of wife - No report lodged with
police or intimation to relatives - Abscondence continued for nearly two years - Arrest possible only after
issuance of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. - Though mere abscondence is not conclusive,
unexplained abscondence in the facts of the case constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance.
(Paras 17, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33)

Defence Plea - False Explanation - Rejection

Plea that deceased was murdered by anti-social elements while resisting sexual assault - No supporting
evidence or circumstance - Post-mortem report does not suggest sexual assault - Defence version
speculative and imaginary - Failure to discharge burden under Section 113-B Evidence Act.
(Paras 12, 17, 28, 31)

Appreciation of Evidence - Related Witnesses

Testimony of brothers of deceased - Natural and trustworthy witnesses - No motive for false implication -
Consistent version regarding dowry demand and cruelty - Supported by medical and circumstantial evidence
- Evidence inspires confidence and is sufficient for conviction.
(Paras 11, 23, 34)

Appeal Against Conviction - Interference - Scope

Trial court correctly appreciated evidence and applied statutory presumptions - Findings based on cogent
reasons and supported by record - No perversity or illegality shown - Appeal dismissed - Conviction and
sentence affirmed.
(Paras 35-38)

IN RESULT: Appeal Dismissed.

## Text

1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
75. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 1981, Ram Briksh Vs. State is
allowed.

76. The impugned judgement and order dated 26.5.1981 passed by Sri T. N.Saxena, II
Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in S. T. No. 112 of 1980 to the extent convicting the appellant
Ram Briksha for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment for life for the said offence is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges
levelled against him and his conviction and sentence is hereby quashed. The appellant Ram Briksha
is on bail. He need not surrender. His personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties
are discharged from his liability.

77. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent to the court
concerned for compliance.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 1372 Of 2012

Heeralal ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Jail Appeal (In Person), Shiv Pal Singh A.C

HELD:
Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Ingredients - Proof - Presumption - Penal Code, 1860 -
Ss. 304-B, 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - S. 4 - Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 113-B

Death of a married woman within seven years of marriage - Death caused by strangulation and hence
otherwise than under normal circumstances - Evidence of dowry demand and cruelty by husband -
Deceased informing her brothers about harassment and dowry demand shortly before death - Live and
proximate link between cruelty and death established - All essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC proved
- Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act attracted - Failure of accused to rebut presumption -
Conviction upheld.
(Paras 22, 23, 24, 26, 30-32)

"Soon Before Death" - Meaning and Application
5 All. Heeralal Vs State Of U.P.

1121
Expression "soon before her death" does not mean immediately before death - Proximity test satisfied where
deceased visited her parental home 2-3 days prior to death and complained of dowry demand and cruelty -
Continuity of harassment established - Requirement under Section 304-B IPC fulfilled.
(Paras 23, 24)

Medical Evidence - Corroboration of Prosecution Case

Post-mortem report revealing contusion on neck, fractured hyoid bone and congestion of trachea - Cause of
death opined as asphyxia due to strangulation - Injuries ante-mortem - Clearly establishes unnatural death
- Medical evidence fully corroborates oral testimony of prosecution witnesses.
(Paras 6, 7, 26)

Conduct of Accused - Abscondence - Evidentiary Value

Accused husband remained missing for 10-12 days after disappearance of wife - No report lodged with
police or intimation to relatives - Abscondence continued for nearly two years - Arrest possible only after
issuance of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. - Though mere abscondence is not conclusive,
unexplained abscondence in the facts of the case constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance.
(Paras 17, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33)

Defence Plea - False Explanation - Rejection

Plea that deceased was murdered by anti-social elements while resisting sexual assault - No supporting
evidence or circumstance - Post-mortem report does not suggest sexual assault - Defence version
speculative and imaginary - Failure to discharge burden under Section 113-B Evidence Act.
(Paras 12, 17, 28, 31)

Appreciation of Evidence - Related Witnesses

Testimony of brothers of deceased - Natural and trustworthy witnesses - No motive for false implication -
Consistent version regarding dowry demand and cruelty - Supported by medical and circumstantial evidence
- Evidence inspires confidence and is sufficient for conviction.
(Paras 11, 23, 34)

Appeal Against Conviction - Interference - Scope

Trial court correctly appreciated evidence and applied statutory presumptions - Findings based on cogent
reasons and supported by record - No perversity or illegality shown - Appeal dismissed - Conviction and
sentence affirmed.
(Paras 35-38)

IN RESULT: Appeal Dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant, Sri S.A.M.
Zaidi, learned AGA for the State at length and perused the record.
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. This jail appeal has been preferred by convict-accused Heeralal son of Asharfi Lal
against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 3, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No.1081 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime
No.497 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Singahi, District Kheri, whereby the appellant has been sentenced, under Section 498-A IPC, to
two years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in case of default, he would have
to suffer two months' additional simple imprisonment. He has been further sentenced, under
Section 304B IPC, to ten years' rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in case
of default, he would have to suffer six months' additional simple imprisonment. He has been further
sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in case of default,
he would have to suffer two months' additional imprisonment under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of this case as discernible from record appears to be; that first informant Daya
Ram son of Sri Bhagwan Deen resident of Bhedaura, P.S. Singahi, District Lakhimpur Kheri,
lodged a written report at police station Singahi, District Lakhimpur Kheri on 04.12.2007 with
accusation regarding dowry death of his sister Kanyawati who was wedded to Heeralal son of
Asharfi Lal one year ago. For about 10 to 12 days, his sister and brother-in-law were missing from
their house. His brother-in-law (appellant) used to work as driver in Batra's farm house. Today the
informant came to know that the dead body of his sister was lying in the sugarcane field of Batra's
farm. He suspects that his brother-in-law Heeralal has murdered his sister and has thrown her body
in the sugarcane field because he used to demand dowry from her. Report be lodged and action be
taken. This report is exhibit Ka-1.

4. The contents of the first information report were taken down in the check FIR at Crime
no.496 of 2007 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Singahi, District Kheri on 04.12.2007 at 3.10 p.m. Check FIR is exhibit Ka-3. On the basis of
entries so made in check FIR, the case was registered against the appellant at report no. 27 in GD of
the same day (04.12.2007) at the aforesaid crime number under aforesaid sections of IPC and
Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Singahi. Carbon copy of GD is exhibit Ka-4.

5. Thereafter, investigation of the case started and was taken over by Sri Ram Kishun, the
then Circle Officer of the concerned District. Inquest report of the deceased was prepared on
04.12.2007. It commenced at 16.20 hours and completed at 17.45 hours. In the opinion of
'Panchans', it was thought proper to send the body of the deceased for post mortem examination in
order to ascertain real cause of death. This inquest report is exhibit Ka-2.

6. Thereafter, relevant papers were prepared for sending the dead body of the deceased for
post mortem examination, i.e. Photonash exhibit Ka-8, specimen seal exhibit Ka-9, challan of dead
body (police form no. 13) exhibit Ka-10, Letter to R.I. exhibit Ka-11, letter to Chief Medical
Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri exhibit Ka-12. Thereafter, dead body of the deceased Kanyawati was
sent to district Hospital, Kheri where post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. P.B. Gaur, on
5 All. Heeralal Vs State Of U.P.

1123
05.12.2007 at 3.00 p.m. who found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased
Kanyawati:-

i. Contusion 15 cm x 3 cm over front of neck 5 cm below chin and 5 cm below
right ear. On dissection subcutaneous tissues ecchymosed and hyoid bone found fractured. Trachea
found deeply congested.

ii. Contusion 3 cm x 3 cm over back on right elbow.

7. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem
injury and strangulation. Post mortem examination report is exhibit Ka-7 on record.

8. The Investigating Officer also prepared site plan of the place from where the body of the
deceased Kanyawati was recovered. He has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-5. After completing
investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the appellant in his abscondence.
Charge sheet is exhibit Ka-6 on record. Thereafter, in due course of time, the appellant was arrested
and was put to face the trial.

9. The learned trial court, after hearing the appellant on point of charge, recorded its primafacie satisfaction for framing charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and in the alternative under
Section 302 IPC and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were read over and explained to the
accused who denied charges and opted for trial.

10. In turn, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony in order to prove its case.
The prosecution in all produced six witnesses. A brief reference of the same is sketched hereunder:

11. Daya Ram PW-1 is the first informant and brother of deceased. Pooran PW-2 is witness
of fact regarding dowry demand. He is brother of the deceased and has proved demand of dowry
and cruelty being perpetrated on the deceased by the appellant. Ram Bux Pal PW-3 is Head
Moharrir who made entries in the relevant check FIR and GD, exhibit Ka-3 and Ka-4, respectively.
Ram Kishun PW-4 is the Investigating Officer. He has detailed various steps which he took in
completing the investigation. He has proved filing of charge sheet (exhibit Ka-6). Dr. Prakash Babu
Gaur PW-5 has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He has
proved the same as exhibit Ka-7. Mahendra Kumar Srivastava PW-6 is Nayab Tehsildar who got
prepared the inquest report exhibit Ka-2. He has also proved papers exhibit Ka-8 to Ka-12.

12. Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of appellant was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has termed his implication false stating that his
wife used to live alone. Some anti-social elements tried to commit rape on her and on opposition
being raised, they murdered her and threw her body away in the sugarcane field. No specific
testimony has been led by the defence.
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. After hearing both the sides on merits, the trial court vide impugned judgment dated
31.07.2012 convicted the appellant under aforesaid charges and awarded sentence under Sections
498A, 304B IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted of alternative charge under
Section 302 IPC.

14. Consequently, this appeal.

15. It has been vociferously contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in this case,
all the ingredients as laid down under Section 304B IPC have not been proved. The fact of cruelty
and dowry demand have not been specifically established by the prosecution. The appellant has
nothing to do with the dowry demand and the alleged dowry death. The demand of dowry has not
been specifically proved by the prosecution. The appellant is in jail for the last 7 years. The police
has wrongly roped in, the applicant in this case. There is no link evidence against the appellant
connecting him with the crime. Virtually, it is no evidence case against the appellant.

16. Sri S.A.M. Zaidi, learned AGA has refuted aforesaid argument by contending that in so
far as ingredients of dowry death as contained under Section 304B IPC are concerned, the same
have been well proved. The fact of cruelty and demand of dowry have been specifically proved by
testimony of two witnesses of fact i.e Daya Ram PW-1 and Pooran PW-2 who are brothers of
deceased Kanyawati.

17. The appellant himself has suggested that some anti-social elements tried to commit
rape on the deceased Kanyawati. On opposition being made to the same, she was murdered and her
body was thrown in sugar cane field. This specific fact was neither proved by circumstances nor by
post-mortem examination report nor by any independent testimony. More so, the appellant had
been absconding for about one year and 10 months after the incident. His presence could be
secured after filing of charge-sheet and only after issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83
Cr.P.C. The presumption of dowry death, under facts of the case, is to be drawn under Section 113
B of the Evidence Act. Now it is up to the appellant to rebut the presumption of dowry death which
under circumstances has not been rebutted.

18. Considered above submissions also.

19. Before proceeding further with the case, it would be proper to consider the contents of
the written report dated 04.12.2007 (exhibit Ka-1). Perusal whereof reflects that it alleges fact that
the dead body of the deceased Kanyawati was lying in sugarcane field of Batra's farm. It has been
specifically alleged that the appellant used to demand dowry from the deceased and there is every
reason to believe that he has caused dowry death and has thrown away the dead body in the
sugarcane field. One very special circumstance has been described in the FIR relating to fact that
both the deceased and her husband (brother-in-law of complainant) were missing from home for
about 10 to 12 days. Obviously, this is very particular circumstance of this case and its effect will
be considered at appropriate stage, as and when the context so required.
5 All. Heeralal Vs State Of U.P.

1125
20. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take into account Section 304B
IPC which is reproduced hereunder:

304-B. Dowry death.-- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such
death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused
her death.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

21. Here the basic ingredients regarding dowry death can be easily taken note of by
referring - to fact that it should be death of a woman and the death should have been caused by any
burns or bodily injury or it occurs otherwise than normal circumstances and this death should occur
within seven years of marriage and next it should be shown that soon before her death the lady was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for or in
connection with the demand of dowry, then this death shall be called 'dowry death' and persons so
causing death shall be deemed to have caused her death.

22. Now I have to consider each of the aforesaid ingredients of dowry death as to whether
the same have been proved or not by the prosecution vis-a-vis testimony and circumstances of the
case. On the point qua fact of marriage of deceased with appellant, it has been stated by the two
witnesses of fact Daya Ram PW-1 and Pooran PW-2 that the marriage took place about 3 to 4 years
ago (when their testimony was recorded). The testimony of Daya Ram PW-1 was recorded on
02.02.2011 and testimony of Pooran PW-2 was recorded on 16.04.2011. This part of their
statement has not been specifically challenged and there is nothing adverse surfacing in their cross
examination which may create any doubt on the prosecution version that the marriage did not take
place as claimed by these two witnesses. Therefore, fact of death of deceased Kanyawati within
seven years of her marriage with the appellant is well established by testimony of PW-1 and PW-2.

23. It has been stated in their testimony that the deceased Kanyawati was their sister who
was married with the appellant. The appellant used to reside in their village. Various articles were
presented in the marriage according to their capacity, but after marriage Heeralal was not satisfied
with dowry and he demanded TV, Cycle, utensils etc. and he used to beat their sister. Heeralal also
demanded dowry from both these witnesses but they could not give any dowry because of their
poor financial condition. They somehow tried to pacify the appellant but he was relentless. When
the deceased came to them, they were told about demand of dowry and cruelty perpetrated by the
appellant on her, for not fulfilling demand of dowry. Thus fact of demand of dowry and consequent
cruelty also stand established against the appellant. More so, the post mortem examination report
establishes cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. This by itself is suffice to
hold that the death in question is unnatural. In the testimony of PW-1, it has been stated on page 2
1126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the deceased came to his house 2-3 days prior to her death. She told him that Heeralal beats her
for not fulfilling demand of dowry. In his cross examination, he has stated that demand of dowry
was raised after 2-3 months of the marriage. These facts have been virtually established and no
reasonable doubt exists to disbelieve this testimony regarding dowry demand and cruelty being
perpetrated by the appellant on the deceased for not fulfilling demand of dowry.

24. Thus, the factum of marriage within 7 years of death is proved. The death is admittedly
unnatural one. The demand of dowry and cruelty being perpetrated to to the deceased, for or in
connection with such demand of dowry, has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses. This
nexus between demand of dowry coupled with fact of cruelty and death is closely connected,
therefore, it is obvious that soon before her death Kanyawati was subjected to cruelty and
harassment by the appellant and her dead body was thrown away in sugar cane field of Batra's
farm.

25. Now relevant query arises as to what the appellant was doing for about 10 to 12 days
after her wife was missing. What was his whereabouts in those days. Why did he not inform
anyone about disappearance of his wife? Why did he not inform family members of the deceased
Kanyawati about her disappearance. The most relevant aspect is that he did not inform even the
police about disappearance of his wife. This particular aspect remained shrouded in mystery till
date.

26. At this stage, it would be relevant to have discussion on the post mortem report (exhibit
Ka-7). Bare perusal of the same indicates that there are two specific ante-mortem injuries noted on
the body of deceased. The first one is on the neck itself. It is specified as contusion 15 cm x 3 cm
over front of neck 5 cm below chin and 5 cm below right ear. On dissection subcutaneous tissues
ecchymosed and hyoid bone found fractured. Trachea found deeply congested. The second injury
mentions contusion 3 cm x 3 cm over back on right elbow.

27. The duration of death was stated to be about 10 days. This by itself is sufficient to infer
that for about at least 10 days, appellant's wife was missing, but he kept silence and did not inform
anybody about the same, whereas, he has taken plea that some anti-social elements tried to commit
rape on her and on opposition being made to the same, she was murdered and her body was thrown
away in sugarcane field of Batra's Farm.

28. This aspect of suggested rape (by the appellant) is strange imagination of the appellant.
How can he guess this particular incident of rape in the absence of any cogent testimony or
circumstance to that effect on record. There is nothing on record which may give any inkling or
force to such suggestion regarding sexual assault on the deceased. Even the post mortem
examination report does not suggest commission of any rape on the deceased. Obviously, the point
so raised should either be established by circumstance or by some evidence. Therefore, suggestion
of rape does not hold ground.
5 All. Heeralal Vs State Of U.P.

1127
29. It is one of the circumstances that after the investigation was over, the whereabouts of
the appellant was not known and after filing of charge-sheet, his presence could be secured only
when non-bailable warrant was issued pursuant to issuance of process under Section 82 and 83
Cr.P.C. This fact has been proved by the Investigating Officer, Ram Kishun-PW-4. The application
so moved for issuance of non-bailable warrant has been proved as exhibit Kha-8 and Kha-9. It is
obvious that at the time of her death, the deceased Kanyawati was in custody of her husband and it
was upto the appellant to explain circumstances and fact of death as to how she died.

30. All the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC have been proved and established.
Now the presumption will be drawn against the appellant for causing dowry death by virtue of
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Ready reference of Section 113B of the Evidence Act is
required to be made at this stage.

"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-- When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such
woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death."

31. As per Section 113B of the Evidence Act, presumption as to dowry death will be drawn
against the appellant. Now it is up to the appellant to disprove and rebut this presumption.
Obviously, the appellant has not come out with any clarification regarding death of the deceased
Kanyawati that it was caused while rape was attempted to be committed on her. To say that all
ingredients of dowry death as contained under Section 304B IPC have not been established by the
prosecution is not acceptable.

32. Here in this case, all ingredients of Section 304B IPC have been established by the
prosecution which invariably raises presumption contained under Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act which presumption remained unrebutted by the appellant. Obviously, the
circumstances are so strewn and placed that they indicate exclusive involvement of the appellant in
the commission of the alleged crime (under Section 304B IPC). For reasons best known to the
appellant, he kept silent for at least 10 days after the death of his wife and he was absconding ever
since. His abscondence continued for over 22-23 months, for which no plausible explanation has
been given by the appellant.

33. No doubt, fact of mere abscondence will not link an accused with the crime but
abscondence in particular circumstance, like the present one, must be reasonably explained and
clarified on the part of the accused. Here non explanation of the appellant's abscondence after
disappearance of his wife from his house is pointing to the guilt of the appellant himself. It is
admitted fact that 3-4 days prior to her death, the deceased had visited house of her brother and had
told about ill treatment and harassment to PW-1 and PW-2 by the appellant for not fulfilling
demand of dowry. There is no motive for false implication of the appellant by the first informant.
1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
34. Testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is innocuous, clinching and inspiring
confidence and nothing adverse comes out of their cross examination. It is a special circumstance
that no one knew anything about death of deceased till recovery of her dead body and conduction
of post mortem examination; but the appellant came out with specific case of sexual assault by antisocial elements on the deceased. In such a scenario, it was open to the appellant to have come out
with some cogent evidence or circumstance which could have supported such claim or hypothesis.

35. The learned trial court has rightly taken into account testimony of the prosecution
witnesses on record and appreciated circumstances of the case and has recorded just finding of
conviction while imposing sentence on the appellant according to law.

36. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 31.07.2012 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No.1081 of
2009 arising out of Case Crime No.497 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Singahi, District Kheri, is upheld in appeal.

37. Consequently, the instant appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

38. In this case, appellant Heeralal is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of his
sentence imposed upon him in the aforesaid sessions trial.

39. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to trial court for intimation and necessary
follow up action.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2016

BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. VIJAY LAXMI, J.

First Appeal No.- 91 Of 2006

Dr. Shailesh Kumari ...Appellant
Versus
Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
I.B. Singh, Ashok Sinha, Saket Misra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Pushpila Bisht, Dr. L.P.Misra