# Neeraj @ Kalua (In Jail) v. State of U.P. 140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 139
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2017
- **Bench:** Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-kalua-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-140-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-47539
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 304B & 498-A - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 -
Dowry Death - Death due to burning -
Unnatural circumstances - Held, if a
married
woman
dies
in
unnatural
circumstances in her matrimonial home
within seven years of her marriage and
there
are
allegations
of
cruelty
or
harassment upon such married woman in
connection with demand of dowry by her
husband or relatives of the husband, the
case would squarely come under dowry
death. (Para 10)
B. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 201 - Causing disappearance of
evidence
-
No
post-mortem
report
conducted - Body of deceased cremated
without informing the parent - Father of the
deceased said that when he came to the
house of her daughter, he did not find the
body of his daughter and she had already
been cremated - Held, it is established by
the prosecution that after the death of
deceased, her body was cremated without
getting the postmortem done to destroy the
evidence which is an offence under Section
201 I.P.C. (Para 19 and 21)
C. Criminal Law - Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - Section 2 - Dowry - Meaning and
definition - Dowry means any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be
given either directly or indirectly by one
party to the other party at or before or any
time after the marriage in connection with
the marriage of said parties - Emphasis on
property or valuable security given 'at or
before' or 'any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of said
parties'. (Para 12)
D. Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B -
Presumption
of
dowry
death
-
Applicability - Held, if it is shown that
soon before her death such woman has
been subjected to cruelty or harassment
by the accused for, or in connection with
any demand of dowry, the Court shall
presume that such person has caused the
dowry death - Any demand of money or
anything
else
must
relate
with
the
marriage - Admittedly deceased died after
one and half years of her marriage i.e.
within seven years of her marriage and
she died in her matrimonial home and her
death was due to burning and it was an
unnatural death otherwise in normal
circumstances - Presumption of causing
dowry death arisen. (Para 10 and 13)
E. Evidence Act, 1872 -Section 113-B -
Presumption - Nature - Onus to proof,
when it shift on the accused - Held,
presumption under Section 113-B
of
Indian Evidence Act is rebuttable, hence
now onus shifts on the accused to prove
as to how the deceased died - It is for the
accused to show that the death of the
deceased

## Text

9 All. Neeraj @ Kalua Vs. State of U.P.
139
based on the fundamental principle of
fairness. This provision incorporates the
valuable principle of natural justice "audi
alteram partem", as it enables the accused
to
offer
an
explanation
for
the
incriminatory material appearing against
him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on
the part of the Court to question the
accused fairly, with care and caution. The
Court
must
put
incriminating
circumstances before the accused and seek
his response. A duty is also cast on the
counsel of the accused to prepare his
defense, since the inception of the trial,
with due caution, keeping in consideration
the peculiarities of Section 304-B, IPC read
with
Section
113-B,
Evidence
Act.
"(Emphasised by me)

27. No specific question was asked
from the accused under Section 313 CrPC as
to what he did after taking the deceased from
his house. Section 106 of the Evidence Act
may not be intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Section
106 of the Evidence Act would only be
applicable
where
the
prosecution
had
succeeded in proving facts. Since the
prosecution failed to establish the facts, it
cannot be said that the accused failed to offer
sufficient explanation to attract Section 106
Evidence Act.

Further it appears from the perusal
of the statement of the accused under Section
313 as also the judgment on the point that the
appellant was not afforded opportunity to put
his defence. Learned trial court also did not
examine the defence of the accused. The
court must put incriminating circumstances
before the accused and seek his response.
Section 232 CrPC provides, "If, after taking
the evidence for the prosecution, examining
the accused and hearing the prosecution and
the defence on the point, the Judge considers
that there is no evidence that the accused
committed the offence, the Judge shall record
an order of acquittal. Such discretion must be
utilised by the trial Courts as an obligation of
best efforts.

28. It also appears that there is no
evidence on the record nor discussed in the
judgment of the trial Court to show that the
deceased Satish had been abducted for
causing his murder or with a view to see that
he was murdered, as envisaged under Section
364 I.P.C. Learned trial Judge nowhere in the
judgment gave his satisfaction as regards the
state of mind of the appellant accused at the
time of the alleged abduction and thus, the
judgment of conviction suffers from serious
infirmity and warrants interference by this
Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

29. In view of what has been discussed
hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the
judgment and order dated 18.3.1999 (supra)
is set aside. The bail bonds are discharged.

Pending application, if any stands
disposed of.

30. Let a copy of the order be sent to
the trial Court as also the lower court records.
----------
(2021)09ILR A139
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2017

Neeraj @ Kalua ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Apul Mishra, Sri Shailendra Singh
Rathore, Sri V.P. Singh Kashyap, Sri Vinod
Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 304B & 498-A - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 -
Dowry Death - Death due to burning -
Unnatural circumstances - Held, if a
married
woman
dies
in
unnatural
circumstances in her matrimonial home
within seven years of her marriage and
there
are
allegations
of
cruelty
or
harassment upon such married woman in
connection with demand of dowry by her
husband or relatives of the husband, the
case would squarely come under dowry
death. (Para 10)
B. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 201 - Causing disappearance of
evidence
-
No
post-mortem
report
conducted - Body of deceased cremated
without informing the parent - Father of the
deceased said that when he came to the
house of her daughter, he did not find the
body of his daughter and she had already
been cremated - Held, it is established by
the prosecution that after the death of
deceased, her body was cremated without
getting the postmortem done to destroy the
evidence which is an offence under Section
201 I.P.C. (Para 19 and 21)
C. Criminal Law - Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - Section 2 - Dowry - Meaning and
definition - Dowry means any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be
given either directly or indirectly by one
party to the other party at or before or any
time after the marriage in connection with
the marriage of said parties - Emphasis on
property or valuable security given 'at or
before' or 'any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of said
parties'. (Para 12)
D. Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B -
Presumption
of
dowry
death
-
Applicability - Held, if it is shown that
soon before her death such woman has
been subjected to cruelty or harassment
by the accused for, or in connection with
any demand of dowry, the Court shall
presume that such person has caused the
dowry death - Any demand of money or
anything
else
must
relate
with
the
marriage - Admittedly deceased died after
one and half years of her marriage i.e.
within seven years of her marriage and
she died in her matrimonial home and her
death was due to burning and it was an
unnatural death otherwise in normal
circumstances - Presumption of causing
dowry death arisen. (Para 10 and 13)
E. Evidence Act, 1872 -Section 113-B -
Presumption - Nature - Onus to proof,
when it shift on the accused - Held,
presumption under Section 113-B
of
Indian Evidence Act is rebuttable, hence
now onus shifts on the accused to prove
as to how the deceased died - It is for the
accused to show that the death of the
deceased did not result from any cruelty
or demand of dowry by the accused
persons/appellant. (Para 15)
F. Criminal trial - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Defence -
Burden of proof - Burden is on the
shoulder of appellant to prove the defence
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Defence
witness stated in his cross-examination
that he does not know as to how deceased
died. At the time of occurrence, he was
not there - Held, there is no evidence on
behalf of appellant on record, hence
appellant miserably failed to prove the
reason of committing suicide by the
deceased - Conviction held justified. (Para
17 and 23)
Appeal dismissed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Vipin Jaiswal Vs St. of A.P. (2013) 3 SCC 684
9 All. Neeraj @ Kalua Vs. State of U.P.
141
2. Surinder Singh & anr. Vs St. of Pun.; 1999 (1)
Crimes 429
3. Maya Devi & anr. Vs St.of Har. AIR (2016)
Supreme Court 125
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard the arguments of learned
counsel for the appellant and learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. This Appeal has been preferred
against the order and judgement dated
23.12.2016 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge (F.T.C.), Court No.03, Bulandshahr
in S.T. No. 403 of 2015, Neeraj alias Kalua
Vs. State of U.P. arising out of Case Crime
No. 186 of 2015 convicting and sentencing
the appellant under Section 498-A I.P.C.
for two years' imprisonment with fine of
Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default, four months'
additional imprisonment; under Section
304B I.P.C. for 10 years' imprisonment;
under Section 201 I.P.C. for two years'
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in
case of default, four months additional
imprisonment; under Section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition
Act
for
five
years'
imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/-, in
case of default, one year additional
imprisonment; under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act for one year imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in case of default,
two months' additional imprisonment. All
the punishments were directed to run
simultaneously.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
complainant, Mahesh has lodged First
Information Report in Police Station,
Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr stating
therein that her daughter Shikha, aged
about 22 years, got married on 13-11-2013,
with
Neeraj
S/o
Murari,
Village
Akhtiyarpur, District Bulandshahr with
Hindu rituals in which he gave articles,
jewellery, clothes, motorcycle, etc. in
dowry as per his capacity. In all,
complainant spent Rs. 7,00,000/- to Rs.
8,00,000/- in her marriage. Even then, inlaws of her daughter were not happy with
the dowry given and after some days of
marriage, they started beating his daughter.
After six months of marriage, Neeraj
demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing a
car which was paid to him by the
complainant, after that also, his daughter
was continuously beaten, thereafter Rs.
1,00,000/- lakh were given to Neeraj but
even after that, he continued beating his
daughter. On 14-03-2015, his daughter has
been murdered by his son-in-law, Neeraj,
his father, Murari, mother, Sheela Devi and
brothers, Vishnu and Kuldeep and for
hiding his daughter's body, they cremated
her without giving any information to him.
It is also stated that complainant sister's
son, Dhara Singh, who resides in the same
village, informed complainant regarding
the killing and cremation of his daughter.
After getting this information, complainant
came to the Police Station from Delhi. On
this first information, Case No. 186 of 2015
under Sections 498A, 304 B, 201 IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
was registered against above-mentioned
accused persons.

4. After investigation, Investigating
Officer submitted charge-sheet against
accused Neeraj alias Kalua, Vishnu and
Smt. Sheela Devi. Murari and Kuldeep
were summoned by the learned trial court
for trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned
trial court framed charges under Section
498A, 304 B, 201 IPC and Section 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act against the
accused persons and after considering the
evidence on record, learned trial court
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
convicted and sentenced only accused
Neeraj alias Kalua under Section 498-A
I.P.C. for two years' imprisonment with
fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default, four
months' additional imprisonment; under
Section
304B
I.P.C.
for
10
years'
imprisonment; under Section 201 I.P.C. for
two years' imprisonment with fine of Rs.
5,000/-, in case of default, four months
additional imprisonment; under Section 3
of Dowry Prohibition Act for five years'
imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/-, in
case of default, one year additional
imprisonment; under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act for one year imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in case of default,
two months' additional imprisonment. Rest
of the accused persons were acquitted by
learned trial court, hence his appeal has
been filed by appellant, Neeraj alias Kalua.

5. First of all, learned counsel for
appellant has argued that in this case
prosecution has miserably failed to prove
the demand of dowry made by the
appellant. Appellant never demanded
anything from the deceased-wife or her
parents which could be considered as
dowry demand. Learned counsel has
argued that prosecution has produced two
witnesses of facts i.e. P.W. 2, Mohini
Devi, who is mother of the deceased and
P.W. 3, Mahesh Chand who is father of
the deceased. Both the witnesses have
stated in their statements that they paid
Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant for starting
a dairy. If this statement is assumed to be
true, even then, it does not relate to
demand in connection of marriage.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
has referred the judgement of Vipin
Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2013) 3 SCC 684 and submitted that if
any demand is made for investing money
in business then it cannot be said as a
dowry demand. Learned counsel further
argued that P.W. 3, Mahesh Chand, father
of the deceased has said in his statement
that only Neeraj used to demand the
money for starting milk dairy which he
got started, hence, it is admission of
father of the deceased that he paid money
only for starting a milk diary which had
no connection with the marriage at all.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted
that apart from the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-,
appellant was paid additional Rs. 1,00,000/-
also and even after that, appellant continued
with maltreatment to the deceased and after
that, he pressurized the deceased and her
parents to transfer their land in his name
which had no connection with any business
and for not getting the demand fulfilled, he
killed his wife and if it is assumed that
deceased committed suicide by setting herself
ablazed, even then, suicide was the result of
pressure of demand of dowry made by
accused and due to beating her regularly.
Learned A.G.A. also next argued that
deceased died just after one and half years of
her marriage and her death was otherwise
than in normal circumstances. It was
unnatural death occurred within seven years
of her marriage and it is proved by
prosecution
witnesses
that
before
the
occurrence, she was subjected to cruelty by
appellant in connection with demand of
additional
dowry,
hence
in
such
circumstances as per Section 113B of Indian
Evidence Act, a presumption of dowry death
will be drawn and the death of deceased,
whether it is homicide, suicide or accidental,
will be covered under dowry death as
envisaged under Section 304 B I.P.C.

8. For ready reference, it is relevant to
reproduce Section 304B IPC which reads
as under:
9 All. Neeraj @ Kalua Vs. State of U.P.
143

"304B. 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.

Explanation.-- For the purposes
of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the
same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(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."

9. For ready reference, Section 113-B
of Indian Evidence Act is also reproduced
which reads as under:

"113B. 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 has 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.

Explanation.--For the purposes
of this section, "dowry death" shall have
the same meaning as in section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860)."

10. If a married woman dies in
unnatural circumstances in her matrimonial
home within seven years of her marriage
and there are allegations of cruelty or
harassment upon such married woman in
connection with demand of dowry by her
husband or relatives of the husband, the
case would squarely come under dowry
death. And for that, presumption of dowry
death will arise under Section 113B of
Indian Evidence Act which says that if it is
shown that soon before her death such
woman has been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the accused for, or in
connection with any demand of dowry, the
Court shall presume that such person has
caused the dowry death. Now here comes
the question of dowry first. It is obvious
that any demand of money or anything else
must relate with the marriage.

11. Learned counsel for appellant has
argued that demanding or paying Rs.
2,00,000/- for starting milk diary cannot be
said to be demanded in connection with
marriage and it will not come under the
definition of dowry.

12. PW 2, Mohini Devi, mother of
deceased has said in her statement that
appellant was not happy with the dowry
given in marriage of her daughter and he
started demanding additional dowry. P.W.
3, Mahesh Chand, father of deceased also
said in his statement that appellant used to
beat his daughter for not meeting out the
demand of additional dowry. Further, both
the witnesses have also said that appellant
also put demand before them to transfer
their land in his name, hence, it cannot be
said that the demand by appellant was
confined only to the extent of starting milk
dairy but demand of additional dowry in
the name of cash and land was connected
with marriage also. Section 2 of Dowry
Prohibition Act 1961 states that the dowry
means any property or valuable security
given or agreed to be given either directly
or indirectly by one party to the other party
at or before or any time after the marriage
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in connection with the marriage of said
parties. Thus, the emphasis on property or
valuable security given "at or before" or
"any time after the marriage in connection
with the marriage of said parties". In this
case both the witnesses, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3
have clearly stated that the accused was
unhappy with the quantity of dowry given
at the time of marriage and demand of
additional dowry was being made by
appellant and for that reason there was
continuous beating of deceased by the
appellant, hence, on the basis of facts and
evidence of this case, it cannot be said that
appellant demanded money only and only
to start the milk-dairy, hence, the case laws
submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant i.e. Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 684 does
not apply in this case.

13. It is an admitted fact that deceased
died after one and half years of her
marriage i.e. within seven years of her
marriage and she died in her matrimonial
home and her death was due to burning and
it was an unnatural death otherwise in
normal
circumstances,
hence,
the
presumption under Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 arises and it
shall be presumed that it was a dowry
death. It is also a burden of prosecution to
prove that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty soon before her death. In this
regard, P.W. 3, Mahesh Chand, father of
deceased has said in his cross-examination
that before 4-5 days of her death, Shikha
(his deceased-daughter) came to his house
and told that her in-laws harassed her to the
great extent and they were demanding land
in additional dowry and if he doesn't
transfer the land in favour of accused, they
would kill her. It was the statement of
deceased made before 4-5 days of her
death.

14. Though the language used is
"soon before her death", but no definite
period has been indicated in this regard and
the expression "soon before her death" has
not been defined in Section 113B of Indian
Evidence Act or in Section 304B IPC.
Accordingly, the period which can come
within the term "soon before her death" is
to be determined by the Court depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each
case because it may vary from case to case
but it is necessary that interval between the
cruelty or harassment and the death in
question should not be very wide. In other
word, there must be existence of her
proximate and live link between the effect
of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
death concerned. In the present case, P.W.
3 has stated in his statement that just before
four to five days of her death, her daughter
came to his house and complained about
the harassment and demand of additional
dowry. So it can very well come in the
ambit of phrase "soon before her death".

15. In the light of discussion made
above, prosecution has established that the
death of the deceased was dowry death.
The presumption under Section 113B of
Indian Evidence Act is rebuttable, hence
now onus shifts on the accused to prove as
to how the deceased died. It is for the
accused to show that the death of the
deceased did not result from any cruelty or
demand
of
dowry
by
the
accused
persons/appellant.

16. Appellant has taken up case that
the deceased has herself committed suicide
but Hon'ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh
& Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 1999 (1)
Crimes 429 and Maya Devi and Another
Vs. State of Haryana AIR (2016) Supreme
Court 125 has held that a homicidal or
suicidal or accidental, all three types of
9 All. Neeraj @ Kalua Vs. State of U.P.
145
deaths come under the purview of dowry
death. In his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C., the accused appellant has set up
the case and stated that the deceased was of
irritating nature and she committed suicide
by locking the door of the room from inside
and he took her out after breaking the door
with the help of villagers. It is also stated in
his statement that cremation of deceased
was made in the presence of her father and
after that, on instigation of his wife, father
of the deceased made illegal demand of
money from appellant and due to not
meeting out that demand, he was falsely
implicated in this case.

17. Now, it is the burden on the
shoulder of appellant to prove the defence
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which the
defence witness, Dalchand was produced
as D.W. 1 but this witness has stated in his
cross-examination that he does not know
as to how Shikha died. At the time of
occurrence, he was not there. He has also
stated in cross-examination that deceased
Shikha was of feeble minded and irritating
in nature. She got treatment also for that
but he failed to disclose as to which doctor
had treated her. Besides this, there is no
evidence on behalf of appellant on record,
hence appellant miserably failed to prove
the reason of committing suicide by the
deceased. Moreover, it is not worthbelieving that if a person is of irritating
nature, he or she will commit suicide only
due to that reason. In Surinder Singh &
Anr. Vs. State of Punjab (Supra), it is
also held by Hon'ble Apex Court that
husband being the direct beneficiary can
be inferred to have caused life of his wife
so miserable that she was compelled to
commit suicide.

18. Appellant is not able to rebut the
presumption of dowry death in this case.

19. Now, here comes the conduct of
accused appellant after death of his wife. In
this regard, learned counsel for appellant
argued that after the death of deceased, her
father was duly informed, after that, he
came from Delhi and cremation took place
with his consent in his presence but I do not
agree with this argument from the side of
appellant because it is against the evidence
on record. P.W. 3, father of the deceased
has said in his statement that when he came
to the house of her daughter, he did not find
the body of his daughter and she had
already been cremated while destroying the
evidence. He has also stated in his crossexamination that police personnel had
already gone after taking the ashes of fire
of his daughter even before his reaching
there. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, both the
witnesses have stated in their statements
that when they reached the house of their
daughter, she had already been cremated
and appellant and his family members have
already fled from there.

20. Perusal of record also shows that
police went to the house of deceased and
collected wooden pieces of door of the
room which was half burnt and police also
collected some hair, pieces of bangle, burnt
pieces of saree etc. from inside the room
and police sealed above articles on the spot.
This recovery-memo is proved by P.W. 6
as Exhibit-Ka 8 and in this recovery-memo,
it is written that when the police physically
inspected the place of offence, there was
nobody present in the house and all were
found absconded. These collected articles
from the spot were sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory,
Agra
for
chemical
examination. That report dated 22, July
2016 is on record and in this report, it is
opined that in pieces of burnt cloth, it could
not be opined that there was human skin
present in these clothes and whether burnt
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bones and ashes were of human bones or
not but it was opined in this report that the
hair was found to be human hair.

21.

Investigating
Officer
also
prepared one site plan, Exhibit-Ka 4 which
relates to the place of occurrence and in
addition to that Investigating Officer also
prepared site-plan, Exhibit-Ka 5 which
shows place where the dead body of
deceased was cremated behind a school,
hence it is established and proved by the
prosecution that after the death of deceased,
her body was cremated without getting the
postmortem done to destroy the evidence
which is an offence under Section 201
I.P.C. The conduct of accused appellant
after the death of his wife also establishes
that he had tried to destroy the evidence
because if the deceased had committed
suicide and appellant was not responsible
for that then he would have informed the
police but the accused neither informed the
police nor informed the parents of deceased
and even before arrival of parents of
deceased, dead body of the deceased was
cremated and accused fled away from his
residence. So his conduct is also contrary to
the defence taken by him under Section 313
Cr.P.C.

22. No other argument has been
placed by learned counsel for the appellant
before this Court.

23. Hence, keeping in view the above
discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
learned trial court has rightly appreciated
the evidence on record and rightly
convicted and sentenced the accused Neeraj
alias Kalua.

24. The appeal lacks merit and is
liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A146
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Jail Appeal No. 507 of 2018

Govind Kumar Kureel ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, Sri
Swetashwa Agarwal (A.C.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 308 - Attempt to commit
culpable homicide - Wife's FIR that she
was assaulted by her husband with lathidanda, bricks and kick and punches, due
to which she suffered grievous injuries -
Her face and nose were disfigured -
Injured-victim was admitted to Hospital
and remained in Hospital for 17-18 days -
Sentence
of
four
years
rigorous
imprisonment
ordered
-
Validity
challenged - Held, the learned trial court
has fully discussed the entire evidence
and has properly appreciated it and has
rightly held the accused guilty for offence
under Section 308 IPC - There is no
illegality or perversity in the findings
recorded by the trial court - However,
High Court converted sentence of four
years RI to three and half years RI and
fine of Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000. (Para 15,
16 and 19)
B. Criminal Law - Trustworthiness of
injured
witness
-
Corroboration
by
medical evidence - Held, the statement of
the victim is reliable and trustworthy and
there
is
no
major
discrepancy
or