# Smt. Chameli & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 59
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2003
- **Bench:** Virendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-chameli-ors-v-state-of-u-p-46782
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section
154-
First
Information Report- Delay in lodging- It is
settled principle of law that only on the
ground that F.I.R. was lodged by delay,
the prosecution case cannot be thrown
out because no time limit has been
prescribed for lodging the F.I.R. either in
Evidence Act or in the Code. The delay,
caused in lodging the F.I.R., depends upon
facts and circumstances of the each case
and
if
such
delay
is
natural
and
reasonable, it cannot be treated fatal to
the
prosecution
story.
(P.W.-1)
has
specifically stated that he had requested
the concerned police at the time of
inquest proceeding to take action against
the appellants and after post-mortem
examination, also had gone to concerned
police station to lodge the F.I.R. but he
was expelled from the concerned police
station
and
no
F.I.R.
was
lodged.
Thereafter
he
had
sent
the
written
information (Ext.-Ka-1) dated 27.04.1998
to Hon'ble Chief Minsiter, U.P.

There is no uniform proposition of law that
delay in lodging FIR will be invariably fatal for
the case of the prosecution.The effect of delay
depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case- Delay is not fatal where the same is
reasonable and sufficiently explained.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 498-A - Failure to take any legal
step in such disputes against the in-laws
of the deceased does not mean that
neither
dowry
was
demanded
nor
harassment or cruelty was committed to
the deceased soon before her death.
Although, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 failed to
lodge report at any police station but it
cannot be said that they failed to protest
the torture and harassment committed by
the appellants.

Merely because the parents of the deceased
failed to make any complaint before the
authorities cannot lead to the inference that the
deceased was not subjected to cruelty.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 306- The offence of Section 306
I.P.C. is lesser and different from the
offence of dowry death. For this offence
only abetment which leads to commitment
of suicide of a person is required to be
proved and if such suicide is done by
women
within
seven
years
of
her
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
marriage, due to cruelty caused by her
husband or any relation of her husband,
the Court may presume the offence of
abetment of suicide, in view of statutory
presumption as provided under Section
113-A of Evidence Act- The appellants
have failed to lead any satisfactory
evidence
to
rebut
the
statutory
presumption of Section 113-A of Evidence
Act.

The presumption under Section 113-A of the
Evidence Act may be available to the Court
where the wife commits suicide within seven
years of her marriage as a result of cruelty
and the said act of cruelty will constitute
abetment as defined under Section 107 of
the IPC. However, the presumption under
Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is
rebuttable and failure to controvert the same
will lead to the Court taking an adverse
inference against the accused.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860- Section 306- Section 498-A- The
appellants-Durg Vijay and Chameli had
categorically stated that they were
leaving separately from their son - The
prosecution has not made any specific
allegation
and
made
only
general
allegation, for either demand of dowry
or harassment to deceased, against the
appellant-Durg Vijay and Chameli. In
view of above, if the said occurrence
was taken place inside the house of
appellant-Dinesh
Kumar
where
his
presence was most probable, looking
into the whole facts and circumstances
of this case, the prosecution evidence is
not reliable and trustworthy so far it
relates to the appellants-Durg Vijay and
Chameli
and
consequently
the
prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellants-Durg Vijay and Chameli and
they are liable to be acquitted, whereas
it has successfully proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant-Dinesh Kumar (husban

## Text

_Characters 0–39,741 of 62,103. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39741 for what follows._

1 All. Smt. Chameli & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
59
possible, I am of the considered view
that present appeal should be allowed
and impugned judgment and order dated
26.03.1982 passed by Sessions Court
should
be
quashed
and
surviving
appellants should be acquitted.

24. Resultantly, present appeal is
allowed. Impugned judgment and order
dated 26.03.1982 passed in Sessions
Trial No.245 of 1980 is hereby quashed
so far it relates to conviction and
sentence to appellant no.3, Babban
Nonia and appellant no.6, Moti Ram.

25. A copy of this order along with
lower Court record be sent to concerned
Court forthwith for information and
immediate compliance.
----------
(2021)01ILR A59
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2003

Smt. Chameli & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Subodh K. Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section
154-
First
Information Report- Delay in lodging- It is
settled principle of law that only on the
ground that F.I.R. was lodged by delay,
the prosecution case cannot be thrown
out because no time limit has been
prescribed for lodging the F.I.R. either in
Evidence Act or in the Code. The delay,
caused in lodging the F.I.R., depends upon
facts and circumstances of the each case
and
if
such
delay
is
natural
and
reasonable, it cannot be treated fatal to
the
prosecution
story.
(P.W.-1)
has
specifically stated that he had requested
the concerned police at the time of
inquest proceeding to take action against
the appellants and after post-mortem
examination, also had gone to concerned
police station to lodge the F.I.R. but he
was expelled from the concerned police
station
and
no
F.I.R.
was
lodged.
Thereafter
he
had
sent
the
written
information (Ext.-Ka-1) dated 27.04.1998
to Hon'ble Chief Minsiter, U.P.

There is no uniform proposition of law that
delay in lodging FIR will be invariably fatal for
the case of the prosecution.The effect of delay
depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case- Delay is not fatal where the same is
reasonable and sufficiently explained.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 498-A - Failure to take any legal
step in such disputes against the in-laws
of the deceased does not mean that
neither
dowry
was
demanded
nor
harassment or cruelty was committed to
the deceased soon before her death.
Although, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 failed to
lodge report at any police station but it
cannot be said that they failed to protest
the torture and harassment committed by
the appellants.

Merely because the parents of the deceased
failed to make any complaint before the
authorities cannot lead to the inference that the
deceased was not subjected to cruelty.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 306- The offence of Section 306
I.P.C. is lesser and different from the
offence of dowry death. For this offence
only abetment which leads to commitment
of suicide of a person is required to be
proved and if such suicide is done by
women
within
seven
years
of
her
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
marriage, due to cruelty caused by her
husband or any relation of her husband,
the Court may presume the offence of
abetment of suicide, in view of statutory
presumption as provided under Section
113-A of Evidence Act- The appellants
have failed to lead any satisfactory
evidence
to
rebut
the
statutory
presumption of Section 113-A of Evidence
Act.

The presumption under Section 113-A of the
Evidence Act may be available to the Court
where the wife commits suicide within seven
years of her marriage as a result of cruelty
and the said act of cruelty will constitute
abetment as defined under Section 107 of
the IPC. However, the presumption under
Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is
rebuttable and failure to controvert the same
will lead to the Court taking an adverse
inference against the accused.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860- Section 306- Section 498-A- The
appellants-Durg Vijay and Chameli had
categorically stated that they were
leaving separately from their son - The
prosecution has not made any specific
allegation
and
made
only
general
allegation, for either demand of dowry
or harassment to deceased, against the
appellant-Durg Vijay and Chameli. In
view of above, if the said occurrence
was taken place inside the house of
appellant-Dinesh
Kumar
where
his
presence was most probable, looking
into the whole facts and circumstances
of this case, the prosecution evidence is
not reliable and trustworthy so far it
relates to the appellants-Durg Vijay and
Chameli
and
consequently
the
prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellants-Durg Vijay and Chameli and
they are liable to be acquitted, whereas
it has successfully proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant-Dinesh Kumar (husband of
the deceased).

Where only general allegations of demand of
dowry have been made against the in-laws
of
the
deceased
by
the
prosecution
witnesses and they have adopted a specific
plea of living separately from her, then they
will be entitled to be acquitted.( Para 27, 29,
30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 42)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-2)

Judgements/ Case law cited-

1. Kishori Lal Vs St. of M.P., 2007 (58) ACC
1069,

2. Mangat Ram Vs St. Of Har. AIR 2014 SC
1782 and

3. Heera Lal & anr. Vs St. of Raj., 2017 (101)
ACC 265

Judgements / Case law relied upon:-

1. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs St. of Maha.
(2006) 10 SCC 681

2. Tara Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj., AIR
1991 SC 63

3. Preet Pal Singh Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2020
SC 3995

4. St. of Punj. Vs Iqbal Singh & ors., 1991
SCC (Crl.) 513

5. Kans Raj Vs St. of Punj., (2000) 5 SCC
207

6. Naresh Kumar Vs St. of Har. (2015) 1 SCC
797

7. St. of M.P. Vs Saleem @ Chamaru, AIR
2005 SC 3996

(Delivered by Hon'ble Virendra Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred
under Section 374 (2) Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
Code) by the appellants-Smt. Chameli,
Durg Vijay and Dinesh Kumar (hereinafter
referred to as appellants) against the
1 All. Smt. Chameli & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
61
judgment and order dated 19.09.2003,
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court-I, Hardoi in Sessions Trial
No.1099/98, arising out of Case Crime
No.74/98,
Police
Station-Tadiyawan,
District-Hardoi, whereby the appellants
have been convicted and sentenced for
seven years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section
306 I.P.C. and for one year rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- for
the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.. It
has further been directed that the appellants
will have to undergo six months simple
imprisonment in default of payment of fine
for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and
three months simple imprisonment in
default of payment of fine for the offence
under Section 498-A I.P.C.. All the
sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that
the deceased-Guddi Devi (hereinafter referred
to as deceased) was married with the appellantDinesh Kumar in the year 1994. The appellantsDurg Vijay and Smt. Chameli are the parents of
the appellant-Dinesh Kumar. On 25.04.1998,
the deceased-Guddi Devi died due to hanging.
The appellant-Durg Vijay, who was Chaukidar
of his village-Mugalipur, informed the said
incident to concerned police of Police StationTadiyawan,
District-Hardoi.
Sri
Krishna
Bajpayee-Nayab
Tehsildar
(Executive
Magistrate), on the direction of concerned Sub
Divisional Magistrate, rushed to the place of
occurrence on 26.04.1998, inspected the dead
body of the deceased, conducted inquest
proceeding, prepared inquest report (Ext.-Ka-6)
and other document required for post-mortem
examination, sealed the dead body and sent it
for post-mortem examination to District
Hospital, Hardoi.

3. Nanke (P.W.-1), brother of the
deceased, made a written complaint dated
27.04.1998 to District Magistrate, Hardoi,
endorsing
its
copy
(Ext.-Ka-1)
to
Superintendent of Police and another copy
(Ext.-Ka-3) to Chief Minister, U.P., alleging
therein that his sister was married four years
ago with the appellant-Dinesh Kumar and in
her marriage, sufficient dowry was given but
the appellants were demanding a she-buffalo
and transistor in dowry which could not be
given by them due to poverty. It was further
alleged in the said report that due to nonfulfillment of said dowry, the appellants used to
torture his sister, who (deceased) used to
complain him. It is further alleged that on
29.04.1998, there was Mundon Ceremony of
his son-Pinku and in order to get back (Bidai) of
his sister, he (P.W.-1) had gone to his sister's
matrimonial house (Sasural) on 26.04.1998 and
when he reached there, he found the dead body
of his sister, kept in room. It was further alleged
that he narrated the whole story to the police
Inspector, present on the spot, who assured him
that necessary steps were being taken and also
took his signature on a paper. It was further
alleged in the said information that after postmortem of his sister, he again tried to lodge an
F.I.R. but failed to lodge it as the appellant-Durg
Vijay, who was a Chaukidar, was having better
relationship with the concerned local police. It
was further alleged that his sister was hanged
by the appellants, so necessary action be taken
against them.

4. A criminal case, bearing Case
Crime No.74/98, under Sections-498-A,
304-B I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D.P. Act, was registered
against the appellants and chik report (Ext.-
Ka-12) and G.D. report (Ext.-Ka-13) was
prepared by Constable-Mohd. Rashid Khan
(P.W.-7). Investigation of the case was
handed over to Dy. S. P. A. K. Vaidya
(P.W.-9), who reached at the place of
occurrence
and
after
its
inspection,
prepared site plan (Ext.-Ka-14), arrested
the appellants and recorded their statement
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as well as of other witnesses. After the
transfer of P.W.-9, the investigation was
handed over to Dy. S.P. Pradeep Gupta
(P.W.-5), who concluded the investigation
and filed a charge sheet (Ext.-Ka-5) against
the appellants under Sections-498-A, 304-B
I.P.C. & 3⁄4 of D.P. Act before the concerned
Magistrate, who took the cognizance and
since the offence was exclusively triable by
the Court of Sessions, after providing the
copy of relevant police papers as required
under Section 207 of the Code, committed
the case to the Court of Sessions, Hardoi,
for trial.

5. The learned trial Court, after
hearing the counsel for both the parties,
framed charges for the offence under
Sections 498-A, 304-B & 3⁄4 D.P. Act
against the appellants from which they
denied and claimed for trial.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove
its case, examined Nanhake (P.W.-1), Smt.
Shanti Devi (P.W.-2), Prithvipal (P.W.-3),
Dr. B. B. Tripathi (P.W.-4), Dy. S. P.
Pradeep
Gupta
(P.W.-5),
Executive
Magistrate, Sri Krishna Bajpayee (P.W.-6),
Constable Mohd. Rashid Khan (P.W.-7), S.
I. Nishanath Pandey (P.W.-8) and Dy. S. P.
A. K. Vaidya (P.W.-9) wherein Nanhake
(P.W.-1), Smt. Shanti Devi (P.W.-2) and
Prithvi Lal (P.W.-3) are witnesses of fact
whereas rest are formal witnesses.

7. After conclusion of the prosecution
evidence, the statements of the appellants
were recorded under Section 313 of Code
wherein they denied the prosecution
allegations and stated that they were
innocent and had been falsely implicated.
The appellant-Dinesh Kumar stated that he
was married with the deceased-Guddi Devi
eight years ago and neither any dowry was
demanded nor any harassment was given to
the deceased. He further stated that the
deceased was happily residing with him, a
girl was born to deceased who had died 1520 days prior to occurrence and due to
which, she was shocked. He further stated
that the deceased was suffering abdominal
pain and her treatment was going on but
she could not recover from that pain. He
further stated that due to shock of death of
her daughter as well as of her ailment, the
deceased
had
committed
suicide
on
25.04.1998 at about 2:00 p.m. and
information whereof had been given by his
father, appellant-Durg Vijay, at 6:30 a.m.
on 26.04.1998 at Police Station-Tadiyawan.
He further stated that on the instigation of
some person, who were inimical to the
appellant, the informant (P.W.-1), lodged a
false report against the appellants whereas
his father-Durg Vijay and his mother-Smt.
Chameli were residing separately from
him.

8. The appellants in their defence
examined Bharat (D.W.-1) to rebut the
prosecution story.

9. After conclusion of trial, learned
trial Court convicted and sentenced the
appellants as above by the impugned
judgment. Aggrieved by the above said
judgment, the appellants have preferred this
appeal.

10. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Verma,
learned Advocate holding brief of Sri
Subodh K. Shukla, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri G. D. Bhatt, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the appellants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated
in this case. Learned counsel further
submitted that the allegations for demand
1 All. Smt. Chameli & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
63
of dowry and dowry death have been found
false by the trial Court. Learned counsel
further submitted that no complaint was
made against the appellants, earlier to this
occurrence and deceased had committed
suicide in frustration as she was ailing
abdominal disease. Learned counsel further
submitted that the death information of the
deceased was sent to the informant and his
family members and informant was also
present at the time of inquest proceeding ;
he did not make any complaint to the
Officer (P.W.-6). Learned counsel further
submitted that after the cremation of the
deceased in order to harass and extort
money, informant, brother of the deceased,
sent a written report by delay of three days
which was lodged after seven days of the
occurrence.
Learned
counsel
further
submitted that prosecution has failed to
produce any explanation for causing such
delay in lodging the F.I.R. Learned counsel
further submitted that the appellants-Smt.
Chameli and Durg Vijay are parents-in-law
of the deceased, who are more than sixty
years and they were living separately from
the appellant-Dinesh Kumar, husband of
the deceased, but the trial Court did not
consider and discuss the evidence available
on record and without application of proper
mind, passed the impugned judgment and
order, which is liable to be set aside.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants
has placed reliance on the judgment
delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Kishori Lal vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2007 (58) ACC 1069, K. S.
Radhakrishnan and Vikramjit Sen, AIR
2014 SC 1782 and Heera Lal and another
vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (101) ACC
265.

13. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
vehemently opposed and has submitted that
the deceased had died by hanging inside the
house of the appellants within seven years
of her marriage and the appellants have
failed to produce any proper explanation as
to why the deceased had committed suicide
as alleged by the appellants. Learned
A.G.A. further submitted that there is no
delay in lodging the F.I.R. because the local
police failed to lodge the F.I.R. on the
request of P.W.-1 as the appellant-Durg
Vijay was Chaukidar of his village.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that merely on
the ground that informant was present at
the time of inquest proceeding and did not
make any complaint at that time, it cannot
be said that the death of the deceased was
natural. Learned A.G.A. further submitted
that there is no illegality in the impugned
judgment and order and the appeal is liable
to be dismissed.

14. I have considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellants and perused the record.

15. In Kishori Lal vs. State of
Madhya Prasad, 2007 (58) ACC 1069,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the
deceased
had
committed
suicide
on
31.08.1982 and the prosecution had failed
to adduce any evidence that the appellant,
who was husband of the deceased, had
induced or abetted her wife to commit
suicide and also held that the mere fact that
the husband treated the deceased-wife with
cruelty is not enough to commit her
suicide.

16. In Mangat Ram vs. State of
Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 1782, where after
few months of the marriage of the
deceased, on 15.09.1993, according to
prosecution,
the
appellant
sprinkled
kerosene oil on the body of the deceased
and set her on fire, having failed to meet
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the dowry demand. On hearing the hue and
cry, neighbours assembled and took her to
Civil
Hospital
where
she
died
on
17.09.1993, Hon'ble Supreme Court found
that failure of the husband to take the
deceased to his place of posting is not
amount to wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide. Hon'ble the Supreme Court
also held as under :

"23. Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of ''cruelty', which
consists of two clauses. To attract Section
498-A, the prosecution has to establish the
wilful conduct on the part of the accused
and that conduct is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the wife to commit suicide.
We fail to see how the failure to take one's
wife to his place of posting, would amount
to a wilful conduct of such a nature which
is likely to drive a woman to commit
suicide. We fail to see how a married
woman left at the parental home by the
husband would by itself amount to a wilful
conduct to fall within the expression of
''cruelty', especially when the husband is
having such a job for which he has to be
away at the place of his posting. We also
fail to see how a wife left in a village life
"in the company of rustic persons",
borrowing language used by the trial
Court, would amount to wilful conduct of
such a nature to fall within the expression
of ''cruelty'. In our view, both the trial
Court as well as the High Court have
completely misunderstood the scope of
Section
498-A
IPC
read
with
its
explanation and we are clearly of the view
that no offence under Section 498-A has
been made out against the accused
appellant."

17. In Heera Lal and another vs.
State of Rajasthan, 2017 (101) ACC 265,
where the prosecution had failed to prove
the charge of Section 498-A I.P.C. and the
appellants were acquitted for the said
charge, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the appellant could not be convicted
for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

18. Coming to the facts of the present
case, the deceased had died on 25.04.1998
within seven years of her marriage for
demand of dowry and cruelty, inside the
house of the appellants and the appellants
have been convicted for offence under
Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. The offence
of present case was committed after
insertion of Section 113-A and 113-B of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short
Evidence Act). The facts and circumstances
of the case in Kishori Lal (supra), Mangat
Ram (supra) and Heera Lal (supra) relied
by the appellant are different to the facts of
this case, hence, no benefit can be given to
the appellants.

19. The deceased had died within
seven years of her marriage, inside the
house of the appellants where her death
was unnatural and the appellants have been
convicted under Sections-498-A I.P.C. and
306 I.P.C., the provisions of 498-A, 306
I.P.C. and 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act
are relevant, which are as under :

"Section-498-A I.P.C.. Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman
to
cruelty
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.

Explanation.- For the purposes of
this section, ''cruelty' means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of
such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
1 All. Smt. Chameli & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
65
injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or (b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her
or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her to meet
such demand."

"Section-306 I.P.C. If any person
commits
suicide,
whoever
abets
the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

"Section-113A
Evidence
Act.
Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman.- when the question is
whether the commission of suicide by a
woman had been abetted by her husband or
any relative of her husband and it is shown
that she had committed suicide within a
period of seven years from the date of her
marriage and that her husband or such
relative of her husband and subjected her
to cruelty, the Court may presume, having
regard to all the other circumstances of the
case, that such suicide had been abetted by
her husband or by such relative of her
husband."

20. It is also relevant to note that
in most of the cases the death of
married woman, for want of dowry, is
caused inside the house of the accused
persons and all the relevant facts as
well as incriminating evidence are only
in the knowledge of the accused persons
but they do not come forward to
disclose the fact, happened to the
deceased soon before her death. So the
prosecution
cannot
be
blamed
to
produce such evidence which is not in
the
possession
and
knowledge
of
prosecution witnesses.

21. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs.
State of Maharashtra 2006 (10) SCC 681
where accused was charged for committing
murder of his wife for want of dowry and it
was established by the prosecution that
shortly before the offence, he was seen with
his wife inside his house where he and his
wife were normally used to reside. Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under :

"Where an accused is alleged to
have committed the murder of his wife
and the prosecution succeeds in leading
evidence to show that shortly before the
commission of crime they were seen
together or the offence takes placed in the
dwelling home where the husband also
normally resided, it has been consistently
held that if the accused does not offer any
explanation how the wife received injuries
or offers an explanation which is found to
be false, it is a strong circumstance which
indicates that he is responsible for
commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v.
State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC
2077 it was observed that the fact that the
accused alone was with his wife in the
house when she was murdered there with
'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of
the accused with her were strained would,
in the absence of any cogent explanation by
him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State
of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the
appellant was prosecuted for the murder of
his wife which took place inside his house.
It was observed that when the death had
occurred in his custody, the appellant is
under an obligation to give a plausible
explanation for the cause of her death in
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The mere denial of the prosecution case
coupled with absence of any explanation
were held to be inconsistent with the
innocence of the accused, but consistent
with the hypothesis that the appellant is a
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prime accused in the commission of
murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr.
Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC
2045 the medical evidence disclosed that
the wife died of strangulation during late
night hours or early morning and her body
was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene.
The defence of the husband was that wife
had committed suicide by burning herself
and that he was not at home at that time.
The letters written by the wife to her
relatives showed that the husband illtreated her and their relations were
strained and further the evidence showed
that both of them were in one room in the
night. It was held that the chain of
circumstances was complete and it was the
husband who committed the murder of his
wife by strangulation and accordingly this
Court reversed the judgment of the High
Court acquitting the accused and convicted
him under Section 302 IPC. In State of
Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679
the wife was found dead in a hut which had
caught fire. The evidence showed that the
accused and his wife were seen together in
the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused
came out in the morning through the roof
when the hut had caught fire. His
explanation was that it was a case of
accidental fire which resulted in the death
of his wife and a daughter. The medical
evidence showed that the wife died due to
asphyxia as a result of strangulation and
not on account of burn injuries. It was
held that there cannot be any hesitation to
come to the conclusion that it was the
accused
(husband)
who
was
the
perpetrator of the crime."
 (Emphasis Supplied)

22. Coming to the facts of this case,
Nanhake (P.W.-1), brother of the deceased,
has stated that his sister-Guddi Devi was
married to appellant-Dinesh Kumar on
06.05.1993 ; the appellant-Durg Vijay and
the appellant-Chameli were parents-in-law
(saas and sasur) of the deceased. He further
stated that at the time of marriage, he had
given articles of worth Rs.25,000/- and
some money in the dowry but the
appellant-Dinesh Kumar had demanded
she-buffalo and transistor as additional
dowry to which he (P.W.-1) assured that he
would manage the said dowry in future. He
further stated that due to poverty, he could
not manage the said dowry, due to which,
the appellants used to beat and torture his
sister. He further stated that whenever his
sister (deceased) came his house, she used
to complain and had said that if she-buffalo
and transistor were not given to them, they
(appellants) would kill her. He further
stated that on 29.04.1998, there was
Mundon Ceremony of his son and in order
to get back (Bidai) his sister, he had gone to
the house of the appellants and reached
there at 7:00 a.m. on 26.04.1998. He
further stated as he entered inside the house
of the appellants, he saw that the dead body
was lying in room and police were also
present there. Stating that after seeing the
dead body of his sister, he began to cry
bitterly and asked the said police personnel,
present there, to lodge a report, who
assured him not to worry as legal action
was being taken. He further stated that
"darogaji" got his signature made on paper
forcibly, hurled abuses and said that how he
(P.W.-1) dare to implicate his chaukidar
("police walo se kaha ki meri report chal
kar likh lijiye to unhone kaha ki wahi sab
kaam kar raha hoon tum pareshan na ho |
Kagaj number 10 a/4 gawah ne dekhkar
kaha ki is par mere daskhkat darog ji ne
jabardasti banbaye the aur gali dekar kaha
ki mere chaukidar ko phasaonge").

23. Stating that the appellant-Durg
Vijay was Chaukidar of his village, he
1 All. Smt. Chameli & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
67
further stated that the dead body was sealed
and it was sent for post-mortem. Stating
further that he had gone to the hospital, he
further stated that after post-mortem, the
dead body of the deceased was handed over
to the appellant-Dinesh Kumar. Stating that
again he had gone to lodge the first
information report at Police StationTandiyawan but "daroga ji" chased him
therefore he fled away. Stating further that
on 27.04.1998, he had made complaint to
District Magistrate, Hardoi, Superintendent
of Police, Hardoi and Hon'ble Chief
Minister, U. P., he further stated that he had
also sent a copy (Ext.-Ka-4) of the said
complaint by Fax to Hon'ble Chief
Minister, U.P. whereupon a direction was
made to lodge the F.I.R.

24. Shanti Devi (P.W.-2), mother of
the deceased has also stated that her
daughter (Guddi Devi) was married to the
appellant-Dinesh Kumar, four years prior to
her death and the appellants-Durg Vijay
and Chameli were parents-in-law (Sas and
Sasur). Stating that the deceased was not
literate, she further stated that at the time of
her marriage, she had given sufficient
dowry according to her capacity but in
Kalewa (afternoon high tea in marriage
ceremony) there was demand of shebuffalo and transistor to which she had
assured to be given in future. She further
stated that when the deceased returned back
to her matrimonial house, she was very
upset and upon query, she told that her inlaws were demanding she-buffalo and
transistor as a dowry. She further stated that
within two years of marriage, the deceased
had gone so many times to her matrimonial
house but she continuously complained
regarding the torture and harassment,
caused by the appellants, due to demand of
dowry. She further stated that for 1-1/2
years, she did not send her daughter to her
matrimonial home and just before her
death, the appellant-Dinesh Kumar took
away her to his house. She further stated
that a girl also took birth to deceased, who
died within one month. She further stated
that her son (P.W.-1) had gone to invite the
deceased to attend the Mundon Ceremony
of his son but saw that the deceased had
died. She also stated that after getting
information, she had also gone to the
matrimonial home of the deceased and saw
her dead body.

25. Prithvi Pal (P.W.-3), co-villager of
P.W.-1, stating that inquest proceeding was
conducted in his presence and in presence
of P.W.-1, has further stated that deceased
Guddi Devi used to complain the demand
of she-buffalo and transistor by appellant
and harassment and torture caused to her by
appellant.

26. So far as the submission made by
learned counsel for the appellants that after
the death of deceased, the information was
sent to the family members of the
informant and in presence of the informant,
the inquest proceeding of the deceased was
conducted but he did not make any
complaint either to the police who prepared
the inquest report or lodged the F.I.R. at
that day and in order to extort money, he
filed false report after three days of the
occurrence which was lodged after seven
days and no explanation for such huge
delay was given, is concerned, admittedly,
the deceased had died inside the house of
the appellants. In inquest report (Ext.-Ka-6)
it has been specifically mentioned that the
information of the death of the deceased
was given to the concerned police station
on 26.04.1998 at 6:30 a.m. by the
appellant-Durg Vijay and her death was
caused by hanging. It is further mentioned
in the said inquest report that inquest
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceeding was concluded at about 15:30
p.m. on 26.04.1998 and thereafter dead
body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. According to Dr. B. B. Tripathi
(P.W.-4) the post-mortem of the deceased
was conducted by him at about 5:00 p.m.
on 26.04.1998. It means that after postmortem examination the dead body would
have been handed over to the appellants
and thereafter her cremation was taken
place either in the night of 26.04.1998 or
on 27.04.1998. The appellants, in their
statements recorded under Section 313 of
the Code, have not stated as to when dead
body was received by them after the postmortem examination or deceased was
cremated by them. From perusal of the
F.I.R. (Ext.-Ka-1), it transpires that it was
prepared on 27.04.1998 and was sent to
District Magistrate, Hardoi, Superintendent
of Police, Hardoi and also to Chief
Minister, U.P. wherein it was specifically
mentioned that informant was given
assurance by the concerned police at the
time of inquest proceeding i.e. after
occurrence the legal action would be taken
against the appellants and when no legal
action was taken, he (P.W.-1) went to
concerned police station and requested to
lodge the F.I.R. but he was expelled from
there as the appellant-Durg Vijay was the
Chaukidar of his village and was having
good relations with concerned police.

27. It is settled principle of law that
only on the ground that F.I.R. was lodged
by delay, the prosecution case cannot be
thrown out because no time limit has been
prescribed for lodging the F.I.R. either in
Evidence Act or in the Code. The delay,
caused in lodging the F.I.R., depends upon
facts and circumstances of the each case
and if such delay is natural and reasonable,
it cannot be treated fatal to the prosecution
story.

28. Hon'ble Supreme Court, on delay
caused in lodging the F.I.R., in Tara Singh
and others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1991
SC 63 has held as under :-

"The delay in giving the FIR by
itself cannot be a ground to doubt the
prosecution case. Knowing the Indian
conditions as they are we cannot expect
these villagers to rush to the police station
immediately after the occurrence. Human
nature as it is, the kith and kin who have
witnessed
the
occurrence
cannot
be
expected to act mechanically with all the
promptitude in giving the report to the
police.
At
times
being
grief-stricken
because of the calamity it may not
immediately occur to them that they should
give a report. After all it is but natural in
these circumstances for them to take some
time to go to the police station for giving
the" report. Of course the Supreme Court
as well as the High Courts have pointed out
that in cases arising out of acute factions
there is a tendency to implicate persons
belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In
order to avert the danger of convicting such
innocent persons the courts are cautioned
to scrutinise the evidence of such interested
witnesses with greater care and caution
and separate grain from the chaff after
subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny
and in doing so the contents of the FIR also
will have to be scrutinised carefully.
However, unless there are indications of
fabrication, the court cannot reject the
prosecution version as given in the FIR and
later substantiated by the evidence merely
on the ground of delay. These are all
matters for appreciation and much depends
on the facts and circumstances of each
case."

29. Coming to the facts of this case
again, Nanhake (P.W.-1) has specifically
1 All. Smt. Chameli & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
69
stated that he had requested the concerned
police at the time of inquest proceeding to
take action against the appellants and after
post-mortem examination, also had gone to
concerned police station to lodge the F.I.R.
but he was expelled from the concerned
police station and no F.I.R. was lodged.
Thereafter
he
had
sent
the
written
information (Ext.-Ka-1) dated 27.04.1998
to Hon'ble Chief Minsiter, U.P.. This
witness was cross-examined by the defence
counsel on the point of delay but nothing
had come out in his cross-examination to
create any doubt in his statement whereby
it can be shown that such delay was caused
deliberately
to
falsely
implicate
the
appellants in this case. In my view there is
no delay in lodging the F.I.R. and if any
delay is caused, the same is well explained
and is not fatal to the prosecution case.
Hence, there is no force in the submission
of learned counsel for the appellants in this
regard.

30. So far as the submission of
learned counsel for the appellants that no
complaint of demand of dowry or any
cruelty was made by informant earlier to
the occurrence, hence, the prosecution
story, that the deceased was being harassed
and tortured for demand of dowry since
four years is not trustworthy, is concerned,
admittedly, the appellants as well as
informant belong to rural areas. They are
not literate and aware to their legal right.
The deceased was also illiterate. It is often
seen that in rural areas generally the bride
groom's family is well known to the family
of the bride earlier to their marriage
settlement, the bride and her parents do not
agitate some problem and issues occurred
between them with family of bride groom
after her marriage as they believe that due
to lapse of time the problem whether it is
related to demand of dowry or otherwise,
may be subsided or pacified in future.
Parents of bride do not want to interfere in
such disputes. The poor and helpless father
of the bride used to prefer to remain as a
silent spectator in such disputes and avoid
to complain to police authorities because he
believes that such step may deteriorate the
relationship of his daughter with her
husband and in-laws. Failure to take any
legal step in such disputes against the
inlaws of the deceased does not mean that
neither
dowry
was
demanded
nor
harassment or cruelty was committed to the
deceased soon before her death.

31. Recently in Preet Pal Singh vs.
Sate of U.P., AIR 2020 SC 3995 where
Allahabad High Court had suspended the
sentence of the appellant, convicted for the
offence of dowry death, on the ground that
no complaint for demand of dowry was
made earlier by the father of the deceased,
Hon'ble Supreme Court, setting aside the
impugned order passed by this Court, has
held as under :

"42. From the evidence of the
Prosecution witnesses, it transpires that the
Appellant had spent money beyond his
financial capacity, at the wedding of the
victim and had even gifted an I-10 car. The
hapless parents were hoping against hope
that there would be an amicable settlement.
Even as late as on 17.6.2010 the brother of
the victim paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the
Respondent No. 2. The failure to lodge an
FIR complaining of dowry 23 and
harassment before the death of the victim,
is in our considered view, inconsequential.
The parents and other family members of
the victim obviously would not want to
precipitate a complete break down of the
marriage by lodging an FIR against the
Respondent No. 2 and his parents, while
the victim was alive."(Emphasis supplied)
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

32. Coming to the facts of this case
again, P.W.-1 in cross-examination, stating
that he had not lodged any report regarding
torture or harassment with the deceased
prior to her death, has stated that he had
made a complaint at police station Pishawa
regarding torture and demand of dowry.
P.W.-2 has also stated that she had not
made any complaint to any one regarding
demand of dowry or torture committed by
appellants. Both these witnesses had stated
that they did not send the deceased to her
matrimonial home for one and half year,
due to demand of dowry and torture
committed
by
the
appellants.
Thus,
although, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 failed to lodge
report at any police station but it can not be
said that they failed to protest the torture
and
harassment
committed
by
the
appellants. Thus in view of law laid down
by Supreme Court in Preet Pal Singh
(supra), the submission of learned counsel
for the appellants has no force.

33. Appellants have been convicted
for offence under Section 498-A and 306
I.P.C. For offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C. not only physical but mental cruelty
is also sufficient to constitute the offence of
cruelty as required for this section. For
offence under Section 306 I.P.C., the
person, who abets the commission of
suicide, is liable under this section. Offence
of abetment has been defined under Section
107 and 108 I.P.C. Abetment includes,
according to Section 107 I.P.C., instigating
any person to do that thing. Instigation, for
the offence of abetment, is not required preplanned or intentional.