# Nanhakke & Anr v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 6 ILRA 327 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-06-06 - **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nanhakke-anr-v-state-of-u-p-43953 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Unnao, convicted the appellant under Sections 498-A (three years) and 304-B (seven years) of the IPC. Para 2: The prosecution states the deceased married the appellant two years prior to her death. She was allegedly harassed for a watch and bicycle. On 15.4.1993, she committed suicide by jumping before a train. The FIR was lodged the next day. Para 3: Charges were framed under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC; the accused pleaded not guilty. Para 4: List of nine prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.9) produced during the trial. Para 5: Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the father-in-law (Babu Lal) claimed the FIR was false and motivated by a money demand from a relative. He claimed the death was an accident while the deceased attended the call of nature. Para 6: The appellant (husband) and his mother reiterated the defense of false implication and accidental death. Para 7: P.W.1 (Mother) testified regarding the constant harassment for dowry and stated she found the daughter's body mutilated on the tracks while the in-laws' house was locked. Para 8-9: P.W.2 (Brother-in-law) and P.W.3/P.W.4 (Cousins) supported the allegations of dowry harassment and the discovery of the body. 328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Para 10: P.W.5 (Doctor) confirmed the death was due to ante-mortem injuries consistent with being run over by a train. Para 11-14: Testimony of police personnel and the Investigating Officer regarding the registration of the FIR, inquest report, and submission of the charge sheet. Para 15: Noted that the appeal for appellant no. 2 (Babu Lal) abated following his death during the pendency of the case. Para 16: Recording of the presence of counsel for the appellant and the AGA for the State. Para 17: Appellant's Argument: Defense claimed the death was accidental, the FIR was collusive, and the appellant had already served over 3 years. They requested a reduction in sentence or benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. Para 18: State's Argument: The AGA opposed the appeal, highlighting that the death occurred within two years of marriage due to dowry harassment, making it a clear case of dowry death. Para 19: Court's Findings: The Court found the evidence of harassment consistent. It rejected the "accidental death" theory and upheld the use of the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Para 20: The Court refused the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. (probation), stating it was the husband's duty to protect his wife and create a safe environment. Para 21: The Court upheld the conviction and the minimum 7-year sentence under Section 304-B IPC. Para 22: The appellant's bail bonds were cancelled; he was ordered to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence. Para 23-24: The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, and directions were issued for compliance. List of Citations Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Cruelty by husband or relatives. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Dowry death. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Abetment of suicide (mentioned in arguments). Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Power to examine the accused. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Order to release on probation. ## Text 6 All. Nanhakke & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. 327 Security Act, 1980 are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner will be released forthwith if not wanted in any case. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 06.06.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 474 Of 1996 Nanhakke & Anr. ...Appellants Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsels for the Appellants: Shri D. Sahai, Shri Aakash Dixit, Shri Pradeep Srivastava, Shri Prem Kr Srivastava Counsel for the Respondent: G.A. Held - Para 1: The appeal challenges the judgment dated 12.9.1996, where the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, convicted the appellant under Sections 498-A (three years) and 304-B (seven years) of the IPC. Para 2: The prosecution states the deceased married the appellant two years prior to her death. She was allegedly harassed for a watch and bicycle. On 15.4.1993, she committed suicide by jumping before a train. The FIR was lodged the next day. Para 3: Charges were framed under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC; the accused pleaded not guilty. Para 4: List of nine prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.9) produced during the trial. Para 5: Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the father-in-law (Babu Lal) claimed the FIR was false and motivated by a money demand from a relative. He claimed the death was an accident while the deceased attended the call of nature. Para 6: The appellant (husband) and his mother reiterated the defense of false implication and accidental death. Para 7: P.W.1 (Mother) testified regarding the constant harassment for dowry and stated she found the daughter's body mutilated on the tracks while the in-laws' house was locked. Para 8-9: P.W.2 (Brother-in-law) and P.W.3/P.W.4 (Cousins) supported the allegations of dowry harassment and the discovery of the body. 328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Para 10: P.W.5 (Doctor) confirmed the death was due to ante-mortem injuries consistent with being run over by a train. Para 11-14: Testimony of police personnel and the Investigating Officer regarding the registration of the FIR, inquest report, and submission of the charge sheet. Para 15: Noted that the appeal for appellant no. 2 (Babu Lal) abated following his death during the pendency of the case. Para 16: Recording of the presence of counsel for the appellant and the AGA for the State. Para 17: Appellant's Argument: Defense claimed the death was accidental, the FIR was collusive, and the appellant had already served over 3 years. They requested a reduction in sentence or benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. Para 18: State's Argument: The AGA opposed the appeal, highlighting that the death occurred within two years of marriage due to dowry harassment, making it a clear case of dowry death. Para 19: Court's Findings: The Court found the evidence of harassment consistent. It rejected the "accidental death" theory and upheld the use of the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Para 20: The Court refused the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. (probation), stating it was the husband's duty to protect his wife and create a safe environment. Para 21: The Court upheld the conviction and the minimum 7-year sentence under Section 304-B IPC. Para 22: The appellant's bail bonds were cancelled; he was ordered to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence. Para 23-24: The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, and directions were issued for compliance. List of Citations Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Cruelty by husband or relatives. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Dowry death. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Abetment of suicide (mentioned in arguments). Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Power to examine the accused. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Order to release on probation. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.) 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.9.1996 in S.T. No.993 of 1994 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in Crime No.163 of 1993, P.S. Gangaghat, district Unao convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s 498-A IPC for three years imprisonment and u/s 304-B IPC for seven years R.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 6 All. Nanhakke & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. 329 2. Prosecution case in brief are that as per the prosecution case, the marriage of the informant's daughter was solemnized two years prior to the incident. Her husband Nanhakke, father-in-law Babu Lal and mother-in-law Smt. Shanti Devi used to demand watch and bicycle from her and on non-fulfilment of the said demand, the accused-appellant used to cruelly treat her and tortured the deceased for want of the same and on account of the said harassment, the deceased on 15.4.1993 had committed suicide at the eastern outer signal of Ganga Ghat Railway Station. A day prior to the said incident when the deceased committed suicide, the accused had also made great harassment to the deceased. The information about the incident was given to the informant Smt. Sukhdevi who is the mother of the deceased by her another son-in-law Rajesh on which she arrived at the place of incident and saw that her daughter's body was cut into pieces by a train. The in-laws of the deceased had run away from the house which was found to be locked. The FIR was lodged on the written report of Smt. Sukhdevi on 16.4.1993 at P.S. Kotwali, district Unnao case crime no.38 of 1993 u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC and the same was endorsed in the G.D of the concerned police station which are marked as Ext.Ka-3 and G.D is marked as Ext.Ka-4. The investigation of the case was carried out and the Investigating Officer after investigation has submitted charge sheet (Ext.Ka-12) against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared which was marked as Ext.Ka-11. 3. The charges were framed against the accused u/s 498-A and 304-B IPC by the trial court who denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in support of it's case has produced the P.W.1 Smt. Sukhdevi, P.W.2 Rajesh, P.W.3 Chandrika Prasad, P.W.4 Ashok Kumar, P.W.5 Arun Kumar Shah, P.W.6 Head Constable Sohan Lal Singh, P.W.7 Jarakhan Lal, P.W.8 S.I. Chotey Lal, P.W.9 Ashok. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused Babu Lal (now dead) had stated that wrong charges have been framed against him and further stated that a false FIR has been lodged by Rajesh who is the Sardu of accused Nanhakke. He stated that the information about the incident was given to the parents of the deceased by him. The deceased had gone to attend the call of nature where she was crushed by a train. 6. Accused Nanhakke stated in his statement that he is the husband of deceased and has been falsely implicated by Rajesh who is his Sardu. Information about the incident was sent to his mother-in-law. His mother-in-law and her sister demanded money from him. Smt. Shanti Devi also reiterated the same version and stated the she has been falsely implicated by Rajesh who is the Sardu of Nanhakke. 7. P.W.1 Smt. Sukhdei has reiterated the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR and stated that the accused-appellant along with his family members have demanded watch and bicycle from the deceased which she refused to fulfill on account of poverty. The deceased was being harassed by the accused-appellant and his family members for the same. The harassment was so much so that the deceased committed suicide by jumping on a railway track. The information about the incident was given to her by her son-in-law Rajesh and she arrived at the place of occurrence and 330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES saw the dead-body of her daughter whose head was cut by the train. The in-laws of the deceased were not found present at the house as the same was found to be locked. On the spot two sisters of the appellant Nanhakke were found to be present and no one else were present. She performed the last rites of her daughter. She proved the FIR which was lodged by her after performing last rites of the deceased. She got the report written by one Chedi on her dictation which was read-over to her on which she put her thumb impression which was marked as Ext.Ka-1. 8. P.W.2 Rajesh who was the brother-in-law (Jeeja) of the deceased has also narrated the prosecution case as has been stated by P.W.1. He has also stated before the trial court that the deceased was being harassed by the accused persons for watch and bicycle. It was stated by him that the accused Nanhakke was not found at his house. The dead-body of the deceased was lying at the railway track. He had given the information of the incident to his in-laws. 9. P.W.3 Chandrika Prasad and P.W.4 Ashok Kumar are the cousin brother of the deceased and they have also reiterated the prosecution case regarding the harassment of the deceased by her in-laws for watch and bicycle and they have also received information that the deceased was lying at the railway track. 10. P.W.5 Dr. Arun Kumar Shah stated that he was posted at T.B. Hospital Unnao and on 16.4.1993 at 2.15 p.m., he has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He submitted that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries. He has proved post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-2. 11. P.W.6 Head Constainable Sohan Lal Singh was examined by the trial court who has stated that on 16.4.1993 he was posted at police station G.R.P as Head Moharrir and he had registered the FIR of the present case and prepared the Chik FIR and also endorsed the same in the G.D and proved the same on the same day which was marked a Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-3. 12. P.W.7 Constable Jarakhan Lal has filed an affidavit before the trial court stating that he along with Ram Nagina Singh had taken the dead-body of the deceased for post-mortem in a sealed condition on 16.4.1993 while he was posted as constable at police station G.R.P., Unnao. 13. P.W.8 S.I. Chotey Lal Verma is the Investigating Officer of the case and has submitted that on 16.4.1993 he was posted as S.I. at police station G.R.P. Unnao and he has conducted the inquest of the deceased along with Tehsildar Shailendra Kumar Chauhan and proved the inquest report as Ext. Ka-6. He had also prepared Photo Lash, Challani Lash, letter to R.I and C.M.O Unnao under his writing and signature which has been marked as Ext.Ka-7 to Ext.Ka-10 and he has prepared the inquest report in the presence of Tehsildar. 14. P.W.9 Ashok Kumar deposed before the trial court that he was posted as Circle Officer, Unnao on the date of incident and he has conducted the investigation of the case and recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared the site plan and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and proved the same as Ext.Ka12. 6 All. Nanhakke & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. 331 15. The appellant no.2 Babu Lal died during the pendency of the appeal, hence his appeal has been ordered to be abated by this Court vide order dated 21.5.2008. 16. Heard Sri Akash Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant and Mohd. Airaj Siddiqui, learned AGA for the State. 17. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant along with his father Babu Lal and mother who were the in-laws of the deceased were put up for trial and have been convicted by the trial court by the impugned judgment and order for the offence in question and the mother who was old lady and not able to stand was brought by two persons before the trial court, hence she was given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. by the trial court and has been released. He further submitted that the allegations levelled against the appellant that he had tortured the deceased for demand of watch and bicycle which was not fulfilled by the mother of the deceased, on account of the said harassment and torture, the deceased committed suicide is false. The appellant has also not been charged and tried for the offence u/s Â3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence his conviction under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC is against the evidence on record. The deceased met with an accidental death while she had gone to attend the call of nature near railway track and she was run over by the train on account of which she died. He argued that the present FIR has been lodged by the mother-in-law (P.W.1) in collusion with Rajesh (P.W.2) who happens to be the Sardu of the appellant as they failed to pay money to them for not lodging the present FIR. He submitted that the appellant out of seven years conviction, has already serve out more than three years in jail and the trial court has wrongly convicted him under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC whereas from the evidence on record, it is evident that the present case would not travel beyond Section 306 IPC as the deceased herself has committed suicide and the sentence under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC should be set-aside for which the appellant has already undergone more than 3 years in jail and his period of sentence may be reduced to already undergone. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant be given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C and may be released from jail. 18. Learned AGA on the other hand has vehemently opposed the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the deceased who was 20 years old girl whose marriage was performed two years prior to the incident with the appellant, was being cruelly treated for want of watch and bicycle by the accused-appellant and his family members and on non-fulfilment of the same, she was harassed so much that she was compelled to commit suicide, hence she committed suicide on a railway track. He further argued that though it may be a case of suicide but taking into account that the marriage between the appellant and deceased was solemnized two years prior to the incident and there being demand of dowry for want of which she was harassed by the appellant and his family members she committed suicide, then too the offence u/s 498-A and 304-B IPC is made out and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the said offence which does not call for any interference by this Court. 332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 19. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires from the evidence that admittedly the marriage between the appellant and the deceased was performed two years prior to the incident. As per evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is apparent that the deceased was being harassed by the accused-appellant and his family members for demand of watch and bicycle regularly and a day prior to the incident, the deceased was also harassed and that she was compelled to take such a drastic step to end her life, hence she has committed suicide on a railway track and her head was found to be cut along with one hand as it appears from the post-mortem report. The deceased suffered injuries on her person on account of run over by the train which has also been opined by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. The case of the appellant that the deceased had gone to attend the call of nature where she met with the accident does not find support from the evidence on record as the trial court has scanned from the evidence that the defence case which has been set-up by the accused does not appear to be correct. Moreover, it has come to the conclusion that the deceased was being harassed for watch and bicycle which could not be fulfilled by her mother (P.W.1) and on account of regular harassment by the accused-appellant, the deceased committed suicide on a railway track. The trial court has rightly recorded the finding of conviction against the appellant under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC taking into account the presumption drawn against him in view of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and has awarded minimum punishment of 7 years R.I u/s 304-B IPC. 20. The last contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant be given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. does not appear to be correct as the appellant is the husband of the deceased and it was his duty to take care his wife and further to make an atmosphere in the house which could not have compelled the deceased to take such a drastic step that she ended her life because of the harassment and torture made by the appellant along with his family members and a 20 years old girl who had been married to the appellant two years back had to meet such a fate. Hence the appellant cannot be given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 21. The finding of conviction recorded by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC requires no interference by this Court and his conviction and sentence by the trial Court is hereby upheld. 22. The appellant-Nanhakke is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He is present in the Court. He is directed to surrender before the court concerned within two weeks' from today, failing which the C.J.M. concerned is directed to take him into custody and send him to jail to serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court. 23. The present appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to send the certified copy of this order to the District Judge concerned for its compliance. 6 All. Suresh (Jail Appeal) Vs State Of U.P. 333 ----------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 30.06.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA, J. THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 767 Of 2015 Suresh (Jail Appeal) ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: G.A. (In Person), (Amicus Curaie), Nisa Srivastava Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Criminal appeal - Sections 302, 307 IPC - Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (Prevention and Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Marriage ceremony - Harsh firing - Accidental firing - Negligence - No intention - No motive - No enmity - Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 IPC - Offence not committed on the ground that victim is member of Scheduled Caste - Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act not applicable - Conviction modified - Sentence modified - Sentences run concurrently. This appeal has been preferred against the joint judgment dated 15.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-7, Hardoi in ST no. 546 of 2001, State Vs. Suresh and another, Crime No. 160 of 2001, section 302, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes (Prevention and Atrocities) Act [ hereinafter referred to as SC / ST Act], ST no. 687 of 2001, State Vs. Suresh, Crime No. 162 of 2001, section 3/25 Arms Act and ST No. 588 of 2001, State Vs. Lala Ram, Crime No. 163 of 2001, Section 3/25 Arms Act related to police station Sandila, district Hardoi by which accused Suresh was convicted for charge under section 302 IPC read with Section 3/25 SC/ST Act for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/-, for charge under section 307 IPC read with 3/25 SC/ST Act for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, and for the charge under section 3/25 Arms Act for rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- with direction that sentences would run concurrently. Co-accused Lala Ram was also convicted in this matter but his appeal is not before us.(Para 1) Prosecution case in brief was that on 13.5.2001 in house of complainant namely Udan (PW-2) was one ceremony relating to marriage of complainant's son. On that night musical programmes were going on in the village. At that time it was informed that one person had fallen down from the roof. After getting this information Sukhdeo, Vinod, Sarvesh, Munna, Sunil and other persons had rushed on the spot of incident. Suddenly someone fired at 9:30 p.m. due to which Sukhdeo (PW-1), Vinod, Sarvesh, Munna and Sunil were injured and rushed to Government Hospital. Sukhdeo (PW-1) and Udan (PW-2) and Sarvesh Kumar (PW-5) and Anuj were referred for further treatment to Lucknow hospital; however Sunil had died due to said fire-