# Ravi (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 1191
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2161 of 2007
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46760
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section
304-B-
Conviction
under-
Sentenced to life imprisonment- Challenge
only to the quantum of sentence- The
present case is a case of dowry death. The
motive for the offence is that of nonfulfilment of the demand of dowry. The
death is unnatural and within seven years
of marriage, to be more precise after 31/2 years of marriage. The Apex Court has
in the case of Hem Chand Vs. State of
Haryana: (1994) 6 SCC 727 held that in a
case under Section 304-B IPC, awarding
extreme punishment of imprisonment for
life should be in rare cases and not in
every case.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, Section 304-B of the IPC only
raises presumption and lays down that minimum
sentence should be seven years but may extend
to imprisonment for life, hence extreme
sentence for life imprisonment should be
awarded only in rare cases.

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 304-B-
In the present case the appellant has
served out about 14 years and 4 months
(without remission) and there is no
special
and
rare
feature
attracting
maximum punishment. Accordingly, while
confirming the conviction of the appellant
under
Section
304-B
IPC
appellant
sentenced to 12 years' (twelve years')
rigorous imprisonment and the sentence
imposed by the trial court under Section
304B I.P.C. is hereby set aside. The other
convictions and sentences passed by the
trial court are, however, confirmed.

As there is no special feature in the case, the
applicant has served out more than the
minimum punishment, hence sentence modified
to 12 years.

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-2) (Para
29, 30, 31, 32)

Case
Law/
Judgements
cited
(Distinguished on facts):-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,758 of 44,942. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39758 for what follows._

1 All. Ravi Vs. State of U.P.
1191

60. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

61. The computer generated copy of
such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

62. The concerned Court /Authority
/Official shall verify the authenticity of
such computerized copy of the order from
the official website of High Court
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of
such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)01ILR A1191
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2161 of 2007

Ravi ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shree Prakash Giri, Sri Noor Mohammad

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

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section
304-B-
Conviction
under-
Sentenced to life imprisonment- Challenge
only to the quantum of sentence- The
present case is a case of dowry death. The
motive for the offence is that of nonfulfilment of the demand of dowry. The
death is unnatural and within seven years
of marriage, to be more precise after 31/2 years of marriage. The Apex Court has
in the case of Hem Chand Vs. State of
Haryana: (1994) 6 SCC 727 held that in a
case under Section 304-B IPC, awarding
extreme punishment of imprisonment for
life should be in rare cases and not in
every case.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, Section 304-B of the IPC only
raises presumption and lays down that minimum
sentence should be seven years but may extend
to imprisonment for life, hence extreme
sentence for life imprisonment should be
awarded only in rare cases.

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 304-B-
In the present case the appellant has
served out about 14 years and 4 months
(without remission) and there is no
special
and
rare
feature
attracting
maximum punishment. Accordingly, while
confirming the conviction of the appellant
under
Section
304-B
IPC
appellant
sentenced to 12 years' (twelve years')
rigorous imprisonment and the sentence
imposed by the trial court under Section
304B I.P.C. is hereby set aside. The other
convictions and sentences passed by the
trial court are, however, confirmed.

As there is no special feature in the case, the
applicant has served out more than the
minimum punishment, hence sentence modified
to 12 years.

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-2) (Para
29, 30, 31, 32)

Case
Law/
Judgements
cited
(Distinguished on facts):-

1. 2009(2) All JIC 318: Rajesh Pandey Vs St. of
U.P.

2. (2013) 9 SCC 190: Manoj & ors. Vs St. of Har.

3. (2018) 8 SCC 228: Deepak Vs St. of U.P.
(now Uttarakhand)

4. Crl. Appeal No. 1284 of 2019: Suresh @
Kala Vs St. of NCT of Delhi: Order dated
27.08.2019.

Case law/ Judgements relied upon: -
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1.Hem Chand Vs St. of Har.: (1994) 6 SCC 727

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. The present appeal has been
preferred against the judgment and order
dated 08.02.2007 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Agra in
Sessions Trial No. 666 of 2006 (State of
U.P. vs. Ravi), whereby the accusedappellant Ravi has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short referred
to as 'IPC') to life imprisonment, under
Section 498-A IPC to two years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in
default of payment of fine to one year
rigorous imprisonment, under Section 4 of
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to one
year rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs.
500/- and in default of payment of fine to
one month rigorous imprisonment. The
sentences have been ordered to run
concurrently. The Trial Court has further
directed that the period, for which the
accused has already been in jail shall be set
off against the sentence recorded against
him.

2 The prosecution case as per the first
information report lodged by Maya Ram
P.W.-1 is that his daughter Mamta was
married around 3-1/2 years back with Ravi
S/o
Kailash
Chandra
R/o
Behind
Balkeshwar Mandir, Police Station-New
Agra, District-Agra and in the marriage he
had given dowry as per his capability. He
further states that after one year of marriage
Ravi started beating his daughter and
started creating pressure on her for bringing
a motorcycle in dowry, failing which she
would be murdered. The said fact was told
by his daughter Mamta many times to him
and inspite of repeated attempts to sort out
the issue Ravi used to beat his daughter.
Mamta got disturbed and was living in her
maternal house since the last six months.
He further states that he pacified Ravi, on
which he told him that he will come on
Raksha Bandhan on 09.08.2006 and had
stated that if he wants his daughter to be
taken then a motorcycle be given to him,
otherwise he will kill his daughter. On
22.08.2006 in the absence of the first
informant Ravi came to his house at about
10.00 a.m., wherein the daughter-in-law of
the first informant namely Smt. Kranti and
Smt. Vimlesh were at the house and in front
of them beat his daughter Mamta and when
the wife of the first informant went to give
him his food then Ravi assaulted Mamta
with knife on her stomach and ran away. It
is further stated that on the shrieks, the
daughter-in-law of the first informant
reached there and they and his wife
informed him. They went and saw Mamta
lying on the floor in a pool of blood. She
was taken to the hospital and on the way
she died. It was then prayed that a report be
registered and appropriate legal action be
taken.

3. Maya Ram gave a
typed
application at the police station, which is
dated 22.08.2006 for getting a first
information report lodged, the same is
marked as Exhibit Ka-1 to the records.

4. On the basis of the said application
a first information report was lodged on
22.08.2006 at 16.45 hrs. at Police StationJagdishpura, District-Agra as Case Crime
No. 297 of 2006, under Sections 498-A,
304-B, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of The
Dowry Prohibition Act against Ravi S/o
Kailash Chandra, the same is marked as
Exhibit Ka-3 to the records.

5. An inquest was conducted on the
dead body on 22.08.2006, which started at
1 All. Ravi Vs. State of U.P.
1193
17.30 hrs. and concluded at 18.45 hrs., the
same is marked as Exhibit Ka-2 to the
records.

6. Post-mortem examination of the
deceased Smt. Mamta was conducted on
23.08.2006 at 3.15 p.m. at Dr. B.D.
Bhaskar P.W.-6. The doctor found the
following anti-mortem injury on the body
of the deceased :-

"Stab wound size 02 cm. x 01 cm.
x abdominal cavity deep on the lower
abdomen, 2 cm. away from right side
anterio mid line and 1-1/2 cm. below
umbilicus."

The doctor opined the cause of
death due to shock and hemorrhage as a
result of anti-mortem injury.

The time since death has been
opined to be about one day.

7. The knife said to be used in the
assault was recovered by the Investigating
Officer on 22.08.2006 on the pointing out
of Smt. Vimlesh W/o Kali Charan alias
Khillu from the room, where the incident
took place, which was said to have been
thrown by the accused after the assault. The
recovery memo of the said knife is Exhibit
Ka-5 to the records.

8. The investigation of the present
matter concluded and a charge-sheet no.
232/2006,
dated
29.08.2006,
under
Sections 498A, 304-B, 302, 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act
was filed against the accused-appellant
Ravi, the same is marked as Exhibit Ka-12
to the records.

9. The Trial Court framed charges
against the accused-appellant Ravi vide its
order dated 08.11.2006, under Section 304B IPC with an alternate charge under
Section 302 IPC, under Section 498-A IPC
and Section 4 of The Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1861.

The accused-appellant denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.

10. The prosecution in order to prove
its case produced Maya Ram P.W.-1, who is
the first informant and the father of the
deceased. Khillu P.W.-2 is the son of the
first informant Maya Ram and the brother
of the deceased. Umesh Yadav P.W.-3 is the
Head Constable, who transcribed the chik
first information report. Smt. Vimlesh P.W.-
4 is the wife of Khillu P.W.-2, daughter-inlaw of Maya Ram P.W.-1 and is an
eyewitness of the incident. Kundan Lal,
Sub-Inspector P.W.-5 prepared the inquest
and the other relevant and required papers
of the dead body. Dr. B.D. Bhaskar P.W.-5
conducted the post-mortem examination of
Smt. Mamta. S.K. Singh P.W.-7 is the
Circle
Officer,
who
conducted
the
investigation and concluded it by filing the
charge-sheet against the appellant.

11. The accused-appellant denied the
occurrence and claimed false implication.
No defence evidence was led.

12. The Trial Court after considering
the entire evidence on record came to the
conclusion that looking to the evidence on
record and the medical evidence also
offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC
and Section 4 of The Dowry Prohibition
Act are made out. It came to a conclusion
that no such circumstance has been placed
by the defence, by which the prosecution
story be suspected and thus, convicted the
accused and sentenced him as stated above.

13. We have heard Shri Noor
Mohammad, learned counsel for the
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant and Shri Irshad Hussain, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the
State of U.P. and perused the record.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant
at the very outset states that he is not
challenging the conviction as recorded by
the Trial
Court
vide
the
impugned
judgment and order dated 08.02.2007. He
argues that only the quantum of sentence as
awarded to the accused-appellant Ravi
being life imprisonment under Section 304B IPC is being challenged by him as the
same is excessive. He argues that the
accused-appellant
is
in
jail
since
23.08.2006 and has served out about 14
years and 4 months (without remission) in
jail and as such the sentence as imposed of
life imprisonment be reduced. Learned
counsel for the appellant has in support of
his argument relating to the quantum of
punishment has relied upon the following
judgments :-

(i) 2009(2) All JIC 318 : Rajesh
Pandey vs. State of U.P.

(ii) (2013) 9 SCC 190 : Manoj
and others vs. State of Haryana.

(iii) (2018) 8 SCC 228 : Deepak
vs. State of U.P. (now Uttarakhand).

(iv) Criminal Appeal No. 1284 of
2019 : Suresh alias Kala vs. State of NCT
of Delhi : Order dated 27.08.2019.

15. Per contra learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
opposed the sole submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant on the grounds
that the present case is a case, in which
there is consistent evidence of two
witnesses being Maya Ram (P.W.-1) and
Khillu (P.W.-2) regarding the demand of a
motorcycle as dowry by the appellant from
the deceased and due to non-fulfillment of
the same she was murdered by him. It was
further argued that the incident was
witnessed by Smt. Vimlesh (P.W.-4), who is
the wife of Khillu (P.W.-2) and is a natural
witness of the incident as she resides in the
same house. It is argued that even the
medical evidence corroborates with the
prosecution story. It is argued that the
appellant does not deserve any sympathy
whatsoever and the sentence awarded is
appropriate as it is dowry death and the
ingredients of a dowry death are fully
satisfied in the present case. In the last it is
argued that the appeal be dismissed and no
sympathy be extended to the accusedappellant.

16. P.W.-1 Maya Ram is the first
informant and the father of the deceased
Smt. Mamta. He has stated in his
examination-in-chief that the marriage of
his daughter Mamta was solemnized with
Ravi as per Hindu rites and rituals around
3-1/2 years back. He states to have given
gift and dowry as per his capability, which
were quite sufficient. Ravi used to demand
a motorcycle as dowry from his daughter
and for the same used to beat and trouble
her. After one year of marriage he used to
trouble his daughter a lot and used to say
that if he does not bring a motorcycle she
will be murdered. On 09.08.2006 Ravi
came to the house of Maya Ram and at that
time his daughter was in the house, who
had come around six months back as she
was being troubled a lot by him and was
brought by him to the house. On that day,
Ravi came and told him to give a
motorcycle in dowry and stated that he will
not take his daughter back until the
motorcycle is given or else she will be
murdered. On 22.08.2006 Maya Ram went
to his shop at about 9.00 a.m. After
sometime his wife came to give him food.
Ravi came to his house at about 10--10.25
a.m. and started beating his daughter. At
1 All. Ravi Vs. State of U.P.
1195
that time apart from his daughter, his
daughter-in-law Smt. Kranti and Smt.
Vimlesh were in the house and therein Ravi
assaulted his daughter with knife on her
abdomen. Information about the incident
was given to him by his daughter-in-law, on
which he came to the house and saw his
daughter lying in a pool of blood and then
took his daughter and proceeded towards
hospital, wherein on the way at the gate of
the hospital she died and was brought back
to the house. An information about the
incident was given by him to Bodala Police
Chauki, on which he was told to give a
written report. He then got a report typed.
He states that whatever he dictated was
typed. He proves the said application,
which was marked as Exhibit Ka-1 to the
records. He further states that the police
personals at the Police Chowki sent him to
the Police Station-Jagdishpura, where his
report was registered. He states that then
police came to his house and conducted the
inquest, on which he had signed. He
identifies his handwriting on the inquest,
which is marked as Exhibit Ka-2 to the
records.

In his cross-examination, he states
that his marriage was performed about 25-26
years ago with Saiya. About 7-8 children
were born out of the said wedlock amongst
whom 3 are alive. He has 2 sons, in which
Khillu is the elder one and Raju is the
younger son and Mamta is the elder daughter
and the younger daughter is named Lalo. As
of now 3 children are alive. He states that the
marriage of his daughter Mamta was
solemnized with Ravi of Balkeshwar. About
250 baraties came in the wedding. He had
given the entire items of household. He had
spent about Rs. 1 lakh in the marriage. He
states that he has nurtured children in the
same house, in which he is living. His son
earns separately. The house, in which he
lives, has 3 rooms. Both his children are
married. They have separate households.
They live in different rooms. Khillu was
married about 11 years back. Khillu has 3
children and one is about to be born. Raju
also got married at the same time when
Khillu was married. Raju has one daughter.
Both of his sons have separate kitchens and
also work separately. The plot of the house
has a length 43.50 yards and breadth of 22.50
yards. Two rooms are in a straight line on the
third is in the side. All the 3 rooms are
constructed in "L" type. The house has a
small courtyard, it has one toilet. It has no
kitchen. His daughter Mamta lived with him.
His other daughter also lived with him. He is
a barber. He does Pooja at the place
demarcated for God. He does Pooja for about
1-1/2 hours. His shop is on the foot - path in a
Khokha , which is situated at a distance of
about 150-200 yards from the house. He
earns about Rs. 70-80 daily. The business
used to be good on Sundays. His son-in-law
was having a business of flower at the time of
marriage. He states that he does know as to
what his son-in-law was doing when he had
brought his daughter back to the house. His
daughter, who is the deceased, had one son
aged about one and half years. He has spent
money for her delivery. In-laws of Mamta
had left her at her parental house at the time
of delivery and had run away and then he had
taken her to the hospital, where delivery was
done. Mamta was brought back to his house
after delivery and then she was sent with
Ravi to her maternal house. Ravi and his
elder brother had left Mamta at the house at
the time of delivery. At that time his daughter
had told her that Ravi used abuse her, torture
her and beat her and used to say that he has
not got anything and if motorcycle is not
given then he will murder her. He states that
when Ravi had left his daughter and had run
away, he did not inform the police and other
high officials about the incident. He states
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the child was born in the hospital in
Bodala. She was in the hospital for 3 days.
She was brought back to the house after 3
days. Ravi himself had taken Mamta after the
delivery and had abused him on that day. He
did not inform the police and other high
officials about the incident and abuse. He had
stopped going to the house of Ravi after
delivery. He had gone to his shop at 9.00 a.m.
on day of incident. His wife had later on
brought food at the shop for him. When his
wife had brought food for him he was alone
at the shop and there was no customer
present. The information about the murder
was given at the shop by his son Raju. On
receiving
the
said
information
he
immediately left the shop. He received the
information at about 10.30 a.m. On receiving
the information Om Prakash, Chaturi and
Chand,
who
were
sitting
with
him
immediately ran towards the house. When all
the 4 persons reached the house about 400500 people were present there. His daughter,
who was murdered, was wearing a Salwar
Kurta with a black Dupatta. She had a small
child in her lap. His daughter was breathing
and was in a pool of blood when she was
taken to the hospital. She was taken to the
hospital on a Thela. His daughter was lying in
the room of his son Khillu and a knife was
also lying there. Blood was present on the
floor. He was not in his senses and could not
see the blood on the knife and the knife.
Thela, which was used, was of the neighbour.
His daughter was taken to a Nursing Home in
Bodala and she died on the way. 4-5 persons
had accompanied him. He does not know the
name of the persons, who had gone to the
hospital with him. The hospital is situated at a
distance of about 400-500 yards from his
house. It took him about 45 minutes in
reaching the hospital. The doctor attended his
daughter and declared her to be dead and sent
him back. He then brought his daughter to the
house. The injury of knife was on the
abdomen of his daughter. He kept the body at
the door of the house. The police had come
thereafter. On the saying of the police, he
went to the Police Chowki and gave his
report. A police constable took him from the
Police Chowki to police station, where his
report was registered. They went on a Tempo
from the Police Chowki. Police reached his
house at about 5.00 p.m. He is illiterate, he
can write his name. He had signed the papers
given to the police. He had dictated the
report, which was typed on an electronic
typewriter in Bodala. The report was given at
11.00 a.m. at police station. The police had
reached at about 5.00 p.m. and till that time
he was detained at the police station. He
along with his son and police constable had
taken his daughter for post-mortem. When he
reached
his
house
on
receiving
the
information of murder, his both daughter-inlaws and their brother who had come to them
were present in the house. His daughter-inlaw told him that Ravi has murdered Mamta.
He does not remember as to whether the
blood stained clothes were given to the
Investigating Officer or were burnt during
cremation. To a suggestion that after the
delivery he had broken his relationship with
his son-in-law and his daughter, was living
with him, he denies. To a further suggestion
that his daughter and son-in-law had strained
relations and as such she left her matrimonial
house and came to her maternal house, he
denies. To a further suggestion that his
daughter has been murdered by someone else
and to save themselves a false case has been
instituted against Ravi, he denies the same.

17. Khillu P.W.-2 is the son of the first
informant, brother of the deceased Smt.
Mamta and husband of Smt. Vimlesh, who
is the eyewitness of the incident. In his
examination in - chief, he states that the
marriage
of
his
sister
Mamta
was
solemnized about 3-1/2 years back. His
1 All. Ravi Vs. State of U.P.
1197
father had given dowry at the time of
marriage as per his capability, but Ravi was
not happy with the gifts and dowry and was
demanding a motorcycle, for which he used
to torture and beat his sister. His father had
gone one or two times to the house of Ravi
for mediating, but he did not stop and
continued to demand motorcycle and also
continued to trouble his sister and used to
say that if motorcycle is not given then he
will murder her. He states that due to the
said reason his father had brought Mamta
back to her house about 9 months back and
his sister was living in the house since then.
He states that on Raksha Bandhan, Ravi
had come to the house and had said that if
they want to send the girl then motorcycle
be given or else she will be murdered. On
22.08.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. he went to
his shop and his after had also gone. His
wife and the wife of his younger brother,
who are named Vimlesh and Kranti were at
the house. Ravi came to the house and
started beating his sister and assaulted her
on her abdomen with a knife. Information
about the incident was given to him by his
wife. His shop is near the house. His father
has a different shop. He came to the house
and saw that his sister is lying in a pool of
blood and a blood stained knife is also
lying there. His father also came from the
shop. His father took Mamta to the hospital
and as soon as he reached at the gate of the
hospital she died. Her dead body was then
brought to the house. He along with his
father went to the Police Chowki to give
information, but they did not register his
report and told them to bring a written
report. Then his father got a report typed on
a electronic typewriter and went to the
Police Chowki, from where he was told to
go to the police station and give it there and
then he went Police Station-Jagdishpura.
Police came immediately thereafter and did
paper work and sealed the dead body.

In his cross-examination he states
that amongst sisters and brothers he is the
eldest. Mamta, who has been murdered,
was younger than him. He states that he is a
barber, his shop is at Bodala Chauraha. His
shop is situated at a distance of about 2--21/2 kms. from his house. On the day of
occurrence he left his house for the shop at
8.00 a.m. On the day of occurrence his
brother-in-law had come to take his wife to
her maika. His younger sister Lalo was not
at the house on the day of occurrence. She
was in her matrimonial house. He received
the information about the occurrence at
about 10.00 a.m. through a boy, who was
sent by his wife. On the said information he
went to the house and took around 2 hours
reaching there. When he reached the house
he saw Mamta lying in a pool of blood and
a knife was lying beside her. She was then
taken to the hospital on a Thela and on the
way she died. He states that his sister had
died while on the way to the hospital near
Bigha Mandir, from where she was brought
back to the house and the dead body was
then kept at the house. Blood also spilled
on the Thela. They went for lodging the
report after bringing Mamta to the house.
The report was got typed on a typewriter.
His father had gone with him for getting
the report typed. His father had dictated the
report. His father had signed on the said
report. They had gone to the police station
directly after getting the report typed. They
had gone to Police Station-Jagdishpura, but
did not meet anyone and had then come
back to the house. Police had come at
around 5.00 p.m. to the house. 2-3 police
personals had come. The police had then
sealed the dead body. Police had after
conducting the inquest sealed the dead
body and had taken it with them. They had
not brought the typed application with
them. The dead body was taken for postmortem after sealing it. He states that his
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sister was lying in the pool of blood when
he reached home from his shop. The dead
body was taken for post-mortem by the
police on a Tempo. Blood was present at
the place, where the dead body was kept at
the door. The dead body was taken for
cremation directly after post-mortem. They
had returned home after cremation. Police
had come after they had returned home
after cremation. Police did not recover the
blood stained mud. His brother-in-law Om
Prakash
had
come
on
the
day
of
occurrence. His sister had told him about
Ravi troubling her after marriage. He did
not make any complaint to the police or
any high official about it. His sister had
come on her own when she was pregnant
and he had not gone to bring her. Her
delivery was done, for which they had
spent money. His sister and her child were
living with him. He and his father were
looking after the expenses of them. The
knife was blood stained. The police had
taken the knife. He did not see the knife.
He had seen the knife at the time of the
incident in the room. He does not know as
to whether it was a knife or a chhuri. No
wood of the Thela was cut and kept. The
Thela was returned with the blood on it. He
did not tell the same to the Investigating
Officer.
His
statement
was
recorded
immediately after the incident. To a
suggestion that his brother and his wife
were not happy with his sister living in the
house, he denies. To a further suggestion
that due to the same there used to be fight
in the house, he denies. To a further
suggestion that due to the fight, which had
increased some maar-peet took place and
his brother-in-law assaulted his sister with a
knife due to which she died, he denies. He
further denies the suggestion that due to the
said reason, the said incident was not told
to others and the report has been lodged
with a delay.

18. Umesh Yadav P.W.-3 is the Head
Constable, who had transcribed the first
information report of the present case, the
same is marked as Exhibit Ka-3 to the
records. He had also transcribed the
Qayami G.D. No. 51 at 16.45 hrs. on
22.08.2006
after
lodging
the
first
information report, the same is marked as
Exhibit Ka-4 to the records.

In his cross-examination he states
that Maya Ram, Khillu, Chaturi Ram had
come for getting the first information report
lodged. He states to have informed the
officials about the same and the Incharge
Sub-Inspector was sent to the place of
occurrence.

19. Smt. Vimlesh P.W.-4 is the wife of
Khillu P.W.-2, the daughter-in-law of Maya
Ram P.W.-1 and an eyewitness of the
incident. She in her examination-in-chief
states that the marriage of her nand Mamta
was solemnized about 3-1/2 years back
with Ravi as per Hindu customs. In the
marriage, her father-in-law and mother-inlaw had given gifts and dowry as per their
capability. Ravi and his family members
were not happy with the gifts and dowry
and had demanded a motorcycle as dowry
from Mamta and due to the non-fulfillment
of the same Mamta used to be beaten.
Mamta, whenever she came to the house,
used to tell about the demand of motorcycle
by Ravi and also about the beating done by
Ravi. She states that due to the demand of
motorcycle Ravi had left Mamta back to
her house and she was living since the last
six months in her maternal house. On
Raksha Bandhan, Ravi had come and had
asked for a motorcycle and had beaten
Mamta. On 22.08.2006 Ravi came to the
house and had again said that his demand
of motorcycle has not been fulfilled and he
will take her back home only when
1 All. Ravi Vs. State of U.P.
1199
motorcycle is given. She states that even
prior her father-in-law and other persons
had tried to talk to Ravi about it, but he did
not agree. On 22.08.2006 Ravi committed
maar-peet and assaulted her nand with
knife on her abdomen due to which she got
injured and fell on the ground. She was
present in the room at that time. She raised
hue and cry, on which Ravi pushed her and
threw knife in the room and ran away. Then
she sent an information to her husband,
who came to the house and after that her
father-in-law also came. The incident is of
around 10.00 a.m. A boy of the locality had
gone to call her husband. Her nand was
taken on a Thela by her father-in-law and
her husband to the doctor for treatment.
Police had come in the evening. She had
shown them the place of occurrence and the
place, where the knife was lying. Knife was
taken into possession by the police after
doing paper work. She had signed on the
said document, the same is marked as
Exhibit Ka-5 to the records.

In her cross-examination she
states that she is illiterate but can sign. She
has a younger sister named Kranti. The two
sisters are married to two real brothers.
Both marriages were solemnized together.
Kranti was married with Raju. Both
marriages were solemnized on the same
day. She states that on the day of
occurrence she was in her room. Mamta
was also in the same room. Her children
were playing in the courtyard. She has 3
children, the eldest child is about 7 years
old. No one was present in the other room.
In the adjacent room her sister was present.
The other room is of her father-in-law and
the adjacent room is of her sister. Her nand
Mamta and her sister Kranti were present in
the house on the day of occurrence. Her
husband had gone to the shop at 8.00 a.m.
Her father-in-law had gone to the shop at
9.00 a.m. She goes to her maika. She had
gone about six months ago to her maika.
She states that on the day of incident no
one had come from her maika to take her,
she goes and comes on her own. She denies
the suggestion that her brother Om Prakash
had come to the village to take her on the
day of incident. She states that she has two
nands. Her other nand was in her Sasural.
Ravi had come to the house at about 10.00
a.m. She had greeted him when he came.
He sat with her for some time. He did not
talk much to her but started quarreling with
his wife. To a question about what Ravi had
talked to his wife, she answers that he said
that will she go to which she replied that
she will not and then fight started, on which
he assaulted her with a knife. He did not
beat her prior to assaulting her with the
knife, but was saying as to whether she is
going or not. To another question that what
her nand was doing at the time of incident
and what was she wearing, she states that
she was standing and was talking to her and
was wearing a salwar suit. She states that
she has seen the knife, the blade was as
long as the butt. After the incident she
started crying and shouted but and no one
from outside came. She sent an information
through a boy of the neighbourhood. Her
husband reached the house at about 11.00
a.m. and then her father-in-law came. He
dever also came with her father-in-law. She
states that she does not know, from where
Ravi had brought the knife. On her raising
shouts, her sister Kranti had come. Ravi
had run away after the incident. Mamta fell
down after receiving the knife injury. She
did not do any first aid of the injury. Blood
was coming out from the injury. The
clothes were wet with blood. No treatment
was given before her husband, father-inlaw and dever had come. She along with
her sister were with Mamta till the said
persons arrived. Police had reached her
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
house at about 5.00 p.m. She had told the
police that on an attempt to catch Ravi he
pushed her and ran away. She had told it to
her father-in-law and her husband. Police
had sealed the knife before her and had
taken it. To a suggestion that Ravi did not
come to the house and had not assaulted
with a knife, she denies. To a further
suggestion that her nand was a quarrelsome
lady and her staying at the house was not
liked by her, she denies. To a further
suggestion that her brother Om Prakash
was present in the house at the time of
occurrence, she denies. She further denies
the suggestion that on the day of
occurrence a fight took place between her
and Mamta and during the fight her brother
intervened and assaulted Mamta with a
knife, due to which she died on the spot.
She further denies the suggestion that due
to the said reason she did not raise a shout
about the incident. She further denies the
suggestion
that
she
gave
a
wrong
information to her husband and father-inlaw. She further denies the suggestion that
she has involved the name of Ravi in the
present matter and informs her father-inlaw and husband about it. She further
denies that the evidence, which she is
giving, is only to save her brother and
denies the suggestion that she gave
information late to her father-in-law and
husband as a result of which the first
information report was registered with
delay just to save her brother. She further
denies the suggestion that Mamta died on
the spot and she was not taken to the
hospital.

20. Kundal Lal P.W.-5 is the SubInspector, who had conducted the inquest
on the body of the deceased on the
dictation of Rajesh Kumar Prajapati, the
Additional City Magistrate-II, who had also
signed on the same, the same is marked as
Exhibit Ka-2 to the records. He has further
proved the other documents relating to the
papers prepared for the dead body, which
were also signed by the Additional City
Magistrate-II, the same were marked as
Exhibit Ka-6 to Exhibit Ka-9 to the
records.

In his cross-examination he stated
that the first information report was
registered at 16.40 hrs. at the police station
and he reached the place of occurrence on
the direction of the SHO concerned along
with
other police
officials
on
their
motorcycle. He states that when he had
reached there, there was no official present,
but later on ACM-II had arrived on the
information from the police station. He had
found the dead body outside the house,
where the entire paper work was done. The
dead body was then sealed and handed over
to the police constable for post-mortem.

21.

Dr.
B.D.
Bhaskar
P.W.-6
conducted the post-mortem examination of
the
deceased.
The
injuries,
opinion
regarding cause of death and the time since
death has already been noted above. He has
proved the post-mortem report, which is
marked as Exhibit Ka-10 to the records.

In his cross-examination he stated
that the left lung was pale due to excessive
bleeding. The post-mortem was conducted
on 23.08.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. and the
time since death was shown to be about one
day prior and as such death might have
occurred at about 3.00 p.m. on 23.08.2006.
He stated that injury was caused by some
pointed sharp edged weapon. He further
stated that Mamta could have been saved if
the blood collected in her abdomen, could
have been taken care off. He states that the
deceased could have taken food on
22.08.2006 about 4-5 hrs. prior.
1 All. Ravi Vs. State of U.P.
1201

22. S.K. Singh P.W.-7 is the Circle
Officer and the Investigating Officer of the
matter. He recorded the statement of the
witnesses and prepared the recovery memo
of the knife, which is marked as Exhibit
Ka-6 to the records. He prepared the site
plan, which is Exhibit Ka-11 to the records.
He arrested the accused-appellant Ravi on
23.08.2006. He concluded the investigation
and submitted a charge-sheet no. 232/2006,
under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 506 IPC
and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, the same is marked as Exhibit Ka-2 to
the records.

In his cross-examination he stated
that he reached the place of occurrence at
5.30 p.m. He found the dead body of the
deceased at the door of the house. He found
the ACM-II and other police personals
along with the first informant, other family
members of the deceased and public
present there. He states that the knife was
recovered from the room, where the
incident took place on the pointing out of
Smt. Vimlesh. He did not find blood at the
place of occurrence as the incident had
taken place in the morning. He did not
collect blood stained mud. He states that
Maya Ram had told him that Ravi assaulted
Mamta with knife and information about it
was given to him by his daughter-in-law
and his wife. He further states that Maya
Ram had told him that Mamta died on the
way while being taken to the hospital, but
did not tell him that she was taken back to
the house from the way in between. He
further states that Maya Ram did not tell
him as to the mode, by which Mamta was
taken to the hospital. To a suggestion that
he has done the investigation while sitting
at the police station and the investigation is
not proper and a false charge-sheet has
been submitted against accused Ravi, he
denies. To a further suggestion that accused
Ravi has been falsely implicated in the
present, he denies.

23. The accused Ravi in his statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has
stated that he has been falsely implicated in
the present matter. He further states that his
wife used to fight with him and did not
discharge her duty as a wife. She used to be
under the guidance of her father and mother
and used to stay in her maika often. She
had left him and had gone alone and did not
return back and he also did not go to her.
On 23.08.2006 he was taken by the police
from Balkeshwar. At the police station he
came to know about the death of Mamta.
He does the work of repairing punctures.
He did not make any demand of dowry. He
and his in-laws are poor persons.

He did not lead any defense
evidence.

24. Since the learned counsel for the
appellant has confined his argument on the
question of sentence only, this court is not
examining the truthfulness and the veracity
of the statements of the witnesses and is
neither examining the issue regarding the
death of Smt. Mamta nor the case of the
defense as suggested to the witnesses.

25. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 reads as under:

"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
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
death", and such husband or relative shall
be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.--For the purpose 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."

26. The necessary ingredients of
Section 304-B IPC are as follows:

(1) The death of the woman was
caused due to burns or bodily injury or due
to unnatural circumstances.

(2) The death should be within
seven years of marriage.

(3) It is shown that soon before
her, the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative
of the husband.

(4) The cruelty or harassement
was for or in connection with any demand
for dowry.

(5) The cruelty or harassment is
shown to have been meted out to the
woman soon before her death.

27.