# Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi & Ors. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 843
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5663 of 2013
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Syed Waiz Mian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-jonha-jonhi-devi-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-48053
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 313 - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section - 113-B -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 201,
304-B, & 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - Sections 3 & 4 - Criminal Appeal -
challenging the judgment & Order of
Conviction & Sentence by the Trial Court -
offence of giving them benefit of doubt -
on the ground that - all the evidence are
not proved the story of prosecution &
holding that all witnesses are interested
witnesses - court held that - in the light
of settle law by the Apex Court - Trial
Court can only concerned with quality not
with the quantity of evidence - the
testimony of interested witness has to be
examined with extra care and caution -
finding of trial court cannot at all be
termed as perverse - appellant fails to
make out any ground - hence Appeal
dismissed. (Para - 17, 19, 21, 23, 24)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,682 of 62,293. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39682 for what follows._

12 All. Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
843
specific provisions relating to victim
compensation, courts choose to ignore the
provisions altogether and do not even
apply their mind to the question of
compensation. It follows that unless Section
357 is read to confer an obligation on the
courts to apply their mind to the question of
compensation, it would defeat the very
object behind the introduction of the
provision."

25. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the law
propounded by Supreme Court regarding
sentence of accused as well as providing
compensation to the victim, the interest of
justice will be better served if fine is
imposed on the accused-appellants and
injured victims are compensated from the
portion of fine. Appeal is partly allowed
and
the
sentence
is
modified.
The
appellants-accused are imposed the fine of
Rs. 4,000/- each, under Section 147 IPC
and Rs.1,000/- each under Section 323 IPC.
Out of the fine received from the
appellants-accused Rs.3,000/- each shall be
paid to injured Triveni and Kavalpati.
Accused-appellants shall deposit the fine
within two months from the date of this
judgement. In case they do not deposit the
fine within the prescribed time, they shall
have
to
undergo
period
of
sentence/imprisonment passed by the Trial
Court against them.

26. Let the lower court record along
with a copy of this judgment and order be
sent to the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh for
getting it executed by the Trial Court.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 843
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5663 of 2013

Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi & Ors.
 ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ayank Mishra, Sri D.P. Singh, Sri Kumar
Ashutosh Srivastava, Sri Vishnu Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 313 - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section - 113-B -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 201,
304-B, & 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - Sections 3 & 4 - Criminal Appeal -
challenging the judgment & Order of
Conviction & Sentence by the Trial Court -
offence of giving them benefit of doubt -
on the ground that - all the evidence are
not proved the story of prosecution &
holding that all witnesses are interested
witnesses - court held that - in the light
of settle law by the Apex Court - Trial
Court can only concerned with quality not
with the quantity of evidence - the
testimony of interested witness has to be
examined with extra care and caution -
finding of trial court cannot at all be
termed as perverse - appellant fails to
make out any ground - hence Appeal
dismissed. (Para - 17, 19, 21, 23, 24)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kans Raj Vs St. of Punj. & ors. (2000 (5) SC
207),

2. Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Vs The
St. of Gujr. (AIR 2021 SC 4174).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1.
This
Criminal
appeal
under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by
appellants Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi,
Baiju and Ganga Kohar, against judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.11.2013, passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Mahrajganj, in Session Trial No. 96 of
2010 State vs. Baiju and others, whereby
appellants have been convicted under
Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 I.P.C. and
Section 3⁄4 of D.P. Act, they have been
sentenced with multiple sentences.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for both the parties and have gone
through the evidence on record.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution
unfolds that one Ram Bilas presented a
written application to the Superintendent
of Police, Maharajganj, stating therein
that marriage of his daughter Sangeeta
was solemnised on 25.04.2004, as per the
Hindu customs and rituals and on
10.03.2006 she had departed for her
matrimonial house. He had given dowry
as per his financial capacity, his son-inlaw and her father-in-law demanded
colour T.V. and motorcycle as an
additional dowry ten months before death
of the deceased and beaten her daughter
for the same; he went to the matrimonial
house of her daughter but his son-in-law
and his father threatened him not to visit
their house hence he could not go to the
matrimonial house of her daughter. It is
next
averred
in
the
written
F.I.R./application that on 13.03.2009 at
5:00 a.m. his daughter Sangeeta was
killed by family members of her sasural
and her dead body in a hush hush manner
was cremated and no information was
sent to his family members in this regard;
upon coming to know about the incident
he, his brother and his nephew went at
village Jhamat and inquired from Smt.
Jonha Devi (saas) and Ganga Kohar,
father of Baiju (sasur), but they did not
give them satisfactory explanation. Since
she had died, no information was given to
them, thereafter, they went to the police
station, but their F.I.R. was not written,
therefore,
it
was
urged
to
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police
to
issue
direction to the Police Station to register
the F.I.R.

4. On the application moved to
S.S.P. an F.I.R. vide Case Crime No. 226
of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 304-B,
201 I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act,
against Baiju, Jonha Devi, Ganga and
Ramdeen, was registered on 25.03.2009
at 10:30, at the concerned police station
by constable Nagendra Bahadur Singh
and he also entered the substance of the
F.I.R. in the G.D. No.8-Ka. Investigation
was entrusted to one Devendra Nath,
Additional
Police
Superintendent,
Azamgarh, who took it up and at the
instance of informant Ram Bilas, I.O.
visited the place of occurrence and
sketched a site plan. The Investigating
Officer, during investigation recorded the
statement of informant Ram Bilas and
others and upon collecting evidence for
offences under3 Sections 498-A, 304-B,
201 and Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act, he submitted
challan, Paper No.3 to court concerned.

5. The learned Magistrate registered
a Criminal Case No.4177 of 2009 against
the accused and in view of challan and
other materials on record vide order dated
09.06.2009, in the exercise of his powers
enshrined under Section 190(1) clause (b)
took
cognizance
of
the
aforestated
offences against all the accused and
committed the said criminal case vide
12 All. Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
845
order dated 29.06.2010, to the district
Sessions Judge for trial of the accused.

6. Upon receiving criminal case
No.4177 of 2009, the same was got
registered in the District & Sessions court
as S.T. No.46 of 2010.

7. The learned trial court vide order
dated 30.10.2010, framed the charges
against Baiju and three others under
Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and
Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act. All the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As
such, trial of the accused commenced.

8. In order to prove the charges
against
the
accused,
prosecution
examined informant, P.W.1-Ram Bilas
Kohar,
P.W.2-Dashrath,
P.W.3-Smt.
Israwati w/o P.W.1, Ram Vilas Kohar,
P.W.4-Radhey
Shyam,
who
is
the
brother of the informant, P.W.1-Ram
Bilas Kohar, P.W.5- Smt. Sharda wife of
P.W.4 Radhey Shyam, P.W.6 Ram
Samujh, who is the uncle of the
deceased, P.W.7 Smt. Reshama w/o
P.W.6, Ram Samujh, P.W.8, Additional
Police Superintendent, Devendra Nath
and P.W.9- Nagendra Bahadur Singh.

9. Statements of accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and
accused have stated that the instant case
came to be registered on account of
enmity and misunderstanding. They have
also stated in their statements that they
had not made any demand of additional
dowry, nor, deceased was subjected to
mental and physical torture on account
of non-fulfilment of any such demand.
They also stated that they have not killed
the
deceased
for
nonfulfilment
of
demand of colour T.V. and motorcycle
and they did not cremate the deceased in
order to efface evidence of the offence
with an intention to screen themselves
from legal punishment.

10. Accused have also denied that
they had subjected the deceased to
cruelty.
P.W.1
to
P.W.4
in
their
testimonies have not stated the truth.
Whereas, accused in respect of the
evidence of P.W.5 Sharda, P.W.6 Ram
Bilas Kohar, P.W.7 Reshama they have
not made any comments; accused have
also stated that the Investigating Officer
had not made investigation properly and
P.W.9- Nagendra Bahadur Singh has
also given false evidence. Accused have
also expressed their willingness to
adduce evidence in their defence; but
subsequently, they did not lead any
evidence in their defence.

11. During trial, co-accused Ram
Deehal
@
Ramdeen
had
died
on
20.10.2003 and on the strength of the death
certificate, the trial against deceased was
abated.

12. The learned trial court after
hearing the learned counsel for both the
parties, convicted accused/appellants Jonha
Devi, Baiju and Ganga vide judgment and
order dated 21.11.2013 and sentenced them
for life imprisonment and they have also
been convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C.
and sentenced for one year imprisonment
each and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and
learned trial court has also convicted the
accused under Section 3⁄4 D.P. Act and has
sentenced for five years and fine of
Rs.15,000/- each and in default of fine
awarded
3
months
additional
imprisonment.

13. Appellants feeling aggrieved by
the impugned judgement and order dated
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21.11.2013 have preferred present criminal
appeal and have challenged the impugned
judgement, inter-alia, on the grounds that
they have no criminal history. No offence
can be made out against them. In view of
the evidence of the witnesses, the learned
trial court has recorded their conviction
arbitrarily and illegally. The impugned
judgement and order has also been
challenged on the ground that the evidence
on record has not been appreciated properly
and their conviction and sentence is against
the evidence on record. The impugned
judgement and order is contrary to law.
Therefore, the instant criminal appeal be
allowed and impugned judgement and
order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.1, Maharajganj in S.T. No.96 of 2010,
State
Vs.
Baiju
be
set
aside
and
appellants/accused be acquitted.

14. P.W. 1 Ram Vilas, has stated in
his deposition on 24.01.2011 that six and
half years earlier he had married her
daughter Sangeeta as per Hindu rituals and
ceremonies and in the marriage he
according to his financial capacity had
given dowry. After three years of marriage,
in ''Gauna' Ceremony, his daughter with her
husband, father in law and great father in
law departed for her matrimonial house;
thereafter his son in law Baiju and others
demanded T.V. and Motorcycle and also
said unless aforementioned articles were
given, they shall not take Smt. Sangeeta
with them; he expressed his inability to
satisfy their demand, and due to non
fulfilment
of
their
demand
all
the
aforementioned persons on his persuasion
took her daughter Sangeeta with them; they
also complained and threatened that unless
the demanded articles were provided they
shall not send her daughter Sangeeta to his
house and they shall also ill treat her.
Thinking, in marriages such demand is not
uncommon and also persuaded himself that
in due course every thing would become
normal; his daughter in her matrimonial
house for non fulfilment of demand, her
mother in law Jonha Devi, son in law -
Baiju, father in law-Ganga and also her
great grand father in law Ramdeen
subjected her to torture; he went to meet his
daughter to her matrimonial house; her
daughter kept weeping and informed him
that she was being subjected to torture and
also being beaten for not satisfying their
demand for additional dowry; he said to his
daughter that since he is a poor man,
therefore, is not in a position to meet the
said demand; his daughter told him that if
the demand of T.V. and Motor Cycle was
not met these persons shall kill her.

16. After pacifying his daughter and
family members of her inlaws he returned
to his house.

17. P.W.-1 Ram Vilas, has further
deposed in examination in chief that on the
information that the family members of
matrimonial
house
of
her
daughter
Sangeeta had beaten her; he went there,
where, Smt. Jonha Devi and other family
members told him that if their demand for
T.V. and Motor Cycle was not fulfilled
some unfortunate would happen; he had
returned from their house and narrated the
whole story to his wife, brother and other
family members.

18. P.W.-1, Ram Vilas, in his
examination in chief has stated that about
the occurrence he went to file First
Information Report at the police station but
no action was taken; later he got an
application typed and had put his thumb
impression thereon; the First Information
Report was presented to the police
12 All. Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
847
Superintendent, Maharajganj, on whose
direction a criminal case at Police Station
against the accused came to be registered.

19. P.W.-5 Ram Vilas in his cross
examination has admitted that he is an
illiterate person; he does not remember
month and year of the marriage of his
daughter; he also cannot tell the month and
year of ''Gauna'. He has also admitted that
after death of his daughter, he had
presented a typed application to Police
Superintendent; he had not presented any
other application. Subject matter of the
typed application was got written by a
stranger; he had narrated him the details;
which was described in the application and
typist had typed that subject-matter in his
typed application.

20. P.W.-1 Ram Vilas Kumhar, has
admitted that he does not know the
meaning of ''Nivedan' and ''Prarthi'; he does
not know the reason as to how such words
have been written in the written First
Information Report, Exhibit Ka-1. During
his deposition before the Court, F.I.R.
Exhibit Ka-1, was shown to him to which
he said that apart from the typed subject
matter, some words have also been written
by him. Witness-P.W.-1, Ram Vilas, has
admitted that application, Exhibit-Ka-1
bears his thumb impression but he can not
say as to who had written his name. He has
also
admitted
that
in
written
First
Information Report Exhibit-Ka-1 date of
marriage and Gauna, i.e. 25.04.2004 and
10.03.2006 are noted but how they came to
be mentioned in the application he cannot
shed light.

21. P.W.-1, Ram Vilas has further
stated that he does not remember the date,
month and year of the death of his daughter
but how it came to be noted in his First
Inforation Report, Exhibit- Ka-1, he cannot
explain.

22. P.W.-1-Ram Vilas has also deposed
that the Police Stationfalls within the districtMahrajganj, he is native of Village-Badharai
Vishambharpur, whereas, the matrimonial
house of the deceased is situated at village
Jhamat, Police Station-Purandarpur, District-
Mahrajganj; distance between his house and
the matrimonial house was about ''Char Kos';
In a ''Kos' how many kilometres are
comprised of, he does not know.

23. He also does not know how many
miles a ''Kos' comprises; he came to know
about the death of his daughter through
passerby
passing
through
the
road,
conversing among themselves that his
daughter has been done to death; he did not
ask the name of any passerby; after hearing
about the death of his daughter, he reached on
a motor cycle at around 10 a.m. at the
matrimonial house where he found only
mother in law of the deceased but husband,
and father in law and the great grand father in
law were absconding; he does not know
whether at the time of marriage electricity
connection
in
matrimonial
house
was
operational or not.

24. He further states that despite his
endeavours, his daughter was not allowed to
go with him from her matrimonial house
because of non fulfilment of additional
dowry. About one month, earlier he had
visited the matrimonial house of his daughter
who kept weeping without pause and
complained that for non fulfilment of demand
of
additional
dowry,
she
was
being
consistantly beaten and was being subjected
to torture.

25. He has further stated that after
killing her daughter Sangeeta, all the
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid accused persons had cremated her
dead body; he and his brother went to the
house of his son in law and inquired about
his daughter but no satisfactory answer
came;
Smt.
Johna
Devi,
Baiju
and
Ramdeen informed that his daughter had
died; they had also told him that he was
asked to satisfy their demand for colour
T.V. and Motor cycle but he did not meet
their demand, therefore, no intimation in
this regard was given to him. Thus, the
accused Baiju, Ganga, Johna Devi and
Ramdeen for non fulfilment of their
demand of dowry have killed his daughter
and have cremated her.

26. P.W.-1 Ram Vilas, further
deposed that he is a labour and owns less
than one acre land; at the time of marriage
apart from dowry he had also given cash;
after death of his daughter he had gone to
the matrimonial house of his daughter but
had not met the village headman (Pradhan);
he did not inquire about the death of his
daughter from the villagers of matrimonial
village; he had visited the matrimonial
house only on the date of her death
thereafter, he did not go there; at the
matrimonial house he had not found police.
In between death of Sangeeta and lodging
of the First Information Report, he did not
convene any Panchayat.

27. He also deposed that it would be
wrong to say that on provocation of some
rivals of accused and for wrongful gain
they have been falsely roped in this case.

28. The accused have not offered
suggestion to P.W.-1 Ram Vilas, that his
written First Information Report was false
and fictitious and was not written at his
dictation; it has also not been suggested to
P.W.-1 Ram Vilas as to who were rivals of
accused. Since he is a poor labour, hence, he
was not in a position to put any undue
pressure upon the police officers to falsely
implicate them.

29. On behalf of the accused, P.W.-1
Ram Vilas, has not been cross examined
about his evidence given in his examination
in chief to the effect that passerby had met
him in between his village and matrimonial
house of his daughter and through them he
came to know about the death of his
daughter.

30. Evidence of P.W.-1, Ram Vilas
adduced in his examination in chief has also
not been challenged in the cross examination
to the effect that after the alleged incident, he
had gone to local police station wherein his
First Information Report was not lodged; he
has also not been challenged in his cross
examination about his evidence deposed in
examination in chief that he had got typed the
draft of the First Information Report.

31. P.W.-1 Ram Vilas has averred in
written First Infomration Report Exhibit-Ka 1
that marriage and ''Gauna' of his daughter
were
took
place
on
28.04.2001
and
10.03.2006 respectively, though P.W.-1, Ram
Vilas has expressed inability in his testimony
about the said dates noted in his written First
Information Report but it is not the defence of
the accused/appellant that marriage of the
deceased
with
Baiju,
had
not
been
solemnized on 25.04.2004 and it is also not
denied by the appellants/accused that Gauna
of the deceased had taken place on
10.03.2006.

32. It is an undisputed fact that death of
the deceased occurred within seven years of
her marriage with Baiju.

33. Deposition of P.W.-1, Ram Vilas,
has not been confronted in his cross
12 All. Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
849
examination to the effect that the deceased
had shared her condition with her father
and other family members regarding the
torture and cruelty she was consistently
subjected to on account of non satisfaction
of demand of colour T.V. and Motor Cycle.

34. P.W.-1 Ram Vilas has denied the
suggestion offered to him in his cross
examination that it would be wrong to say
that the appellant/accused did not make
any demand for colour T.V. and motor
cycle and also it would be wrong to
suggest that
the deceased was not
subjected to torture due to non satisfaction
of demand of additional dowry by the
appellants/accused.

35. P.W.-1-Ram Vilas has also not
been confronted in his cross examination
about his evidence that he tried to persuade
the
accused/appellants
not
to
make
demands, for colour T.V. and Motor cycle
because of his financial constraint.

36. Further, he has also not been cross
examined regarding his piece of evidence
to the effect that on his visit one month
before, from the date of alleged incident,
deceased had informed him about the
cruelty and her ill treatment by the accused
due to non satisfaction of additional
demand of dowry. P.W.1, has also not been
challenged in his cross examination him on
the effect that he paid visit to matrimonial
house to meet her daughter because after
Gauna they did not send her to his house;
and or his last visit to matrimonial house
one month before the incident, the deceased
kept weeping because of harassment and
torture at her matrimonial house. The
accused have put suggestion to P.W.-1
Ram Vilas regarding additional demand of
dowry and their false implication which has
been categorically denied by him.

37. P.W.-2 Dashrath, who happens to
be brother of the deceased states in his
testimony dated 21.04.2011 that about 6-7
years earlier, marriage of his sister
Sangeeta was solemnized with Baiju and
after
two
years
''Gauna'
had
been
performed; at the time of ''Gauna' Baiju and
his other family members demanded motor
cycle and colour T.V.; he had come to
know that Baiju and others for non
fulfilment of their demand for colour T.V.
and motor cycle had harassed his sister.

38. He has further deposed that he has
passed 2-3 standard; he does not know
when the marriage of his sister was
solemnized; he also does not remember
date of her ''Gauna'; at the time of the death
of the deceased, he was staying in Mumbai
and had returned after four days of her
death; after his return from Mumbai, he did
not go to the matrimonial house of the
deceased; his father had informed him
telephonically on the date of death of his
sister; his father had also told him that he
had gone to the matrimonial house of the
deceased; his father had called him at 3-4
p.m.; ''Gauna' was performed within three
years from the marriage; after lapse of one
year from Gauna, his sister had died; No
member of husband's family, in respect of
death of the deceased had informed him;
after the death of his sister no Panchayat
was convened; P.W.-2 has admitted in his
examination in chief that the deceased had
died at the house of her husband; but, how
she had died was not known to him.

39. P.W.-2 Dashrath, has admitted in
his cross examination that at the time of
death of his sister, he was staying in
Mumbai and he came to know about the
death of his sister on the information given
by his fahter P.W.-1 Ram Vilas, therefore,
his deposition pertaining to death of the
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased or place of death, is based on
indirect evidence. P.W. -2 Dashrath, in his
examination in chief states that at the time
of ''Gauna', his brother in law Baiju and his
other family members had demanded motor
cycle and colour T.V. finds support from
the statement of P.W.-1 Ram Vilas. This
statement of P.W.-2 has also not been
challenged in cross examination nor any
specific suggestion on behalf of the
accused has been offered to him.

40. P.W.-3 Ishrawati, mother of the
deceased, has stated in her statement
recorded before the learned trial Court on
04.08.2011 and 22.10.2012 that in the
marriage of her daughter with Baiju, dowry
was given as per her financial capacity; at
the time of Gauna of the deceased, Baiju,
Ganga and other members of their family
had made demand of T.V. and Motor cycle
but some how after the ''Gauna' her
daughter had gone to her matrimonial
house; at the time of ''Gauna', Baiju and his
family members had also said that Sangeeta
will not be allowed to go to her parental
house unless their aforesaid demand for
additional dowry was satisfied.

41. P.W.-3, Ishrawati, has next
deposed that after ''Gauna' her husband had
gone to meet the deceased to take stock of
her welfare but there also Baiju and his
family members had repeated their demand
of additional dowry; deceased had also
informed his father about continuous
torture by her husband Baiju, father in law,
mother in law, and great father in law and
during such narration she kept weeping.
She further states that two and half years
earlier, for non fulfilment of the demand of
additional dowry of motor cycle and colour
T.V.- husband, father in law, mother in law
killed Sangeeta and they had cremated the
body of the deceased; on coming to know
about the incident, her husband and other
family members went to the house of
accused.

42. P.W.-3 Ishrawati, has not stated in
her examination in chief that after the
Gauna of the deceased she had ever visited
the house of the accused but, what was
transpired at matrimonial house of the
deceased
between
her
husband
and
accused, is stated to have been shared by
her husband with P.W.3 Ishrawati.

43. P.W. 3 Ishrawati, like her husband
P.W.-1 Ram Vilas, is illiterate and is
resident
of
vilallge
Badhara,
Vishambharpur. She is not only a house
wife but also she and her husband have
rural background. In this backdrop not only
her statement but also the deposition of
P.W. 1, Ram Vilas should be read,
understood and scrutinized.

44. P.W. 3, Ishrawati, in her cross
examination says that she does not
remember the date, month and year of
marriage or Gauna of her daughter of the
deceased, after the marriage within a period
of 2-3 years ''Gauna' was performed; she
has expressed her inability that after
''Gauna', in how many days Sangeeta had
died or after ''Gauna' the deceased was not
allowed by her husband and in laws to visit
her parental house.

45. P.W.-1 has also deposed that
accused had also said to him in the
presence of his other family members, that
if their demand for additional dowry was
not satisfied, deceased Sangeeta, in the
Sasural will not stay happy.

46. P.W.3-Ishrawati, has also been
examined about the fact as to how she
came to know about the death of the
12 All. Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
851
deceased, to which she has stated that at the
time of death of Sangeeta she was not
present at her house but her husband had
come to know about the death of the
Sangeeta through passerby, and, her
husband had informed her.

47.

The
statement
of
P.W.-3
Ishrawati, is not based on direct or indirect
evidence because she has specifically
disclosed that on the date of death of her
daughter she was not present at her house.
It appears that after her return to her house
she had come to know about the death of
Sangeeta.

48. P.W.-3, Ishrawati, has also
admitted that she did not visit the inlaws
house of her daughter. On receiving the
information about the death of Sangeeta,
Dashrath and her husband with other
persons whose name she does not know
had visited her in laws house.

49. P.W.-2 Dashrath, has not stated in
his entire statement that after ''Gauna', he
had visited with his father or others to the
in laws house of her sister.

50. P.W.-3, in response to the
suggestion in her cross examination has
stated that it would be correct to say that
her knowledge pertaining to the incident is
based on the information of her husband,
son and others. She has also admitted that
she has not witnessed the incident.

51. It is not the case of the
prosecution that P.W.3-Ishrawati, P.W.-1
Ram Vilas, or P.W.-2 Dashrath, have seen
the incident. On the contrary, it is case of
prosecution that about the death of the
deceased, P.W.-1 Ram Vilas had come to
know through passerby and her cremation
had also taken place.

52. P.W.-1 Ram Vilas has also
deposed that none of the inlaws of her
daughter, had informed him or any member
of his family in respect of the death of
Sangeeta.

53. P.W. -3, Smt. Ishrawati, also has
stated in her cross examination that there is
no electric connection in the house of
Baiju; accused had made demand for
colour T.V. and Motor cycle at the time of
marriage. She has also expressed her
inability to reveal the reason of her
previous statement in examination in chief
that accused had made demand for colour
T.V. and motor cycle at the time of
''Gauna'.

54. In sequence of her cross
examination or elsewhere, the reply of the
P.W.-3 Ishrawati Devi, with regard to
which one of her statements is true is not
on record nor any observation of the
learned trial Court has been recorded,
therefore, it cannot be said that she (P.W.-
3) maintained silence with regard to the
said question, as such no adverse inference
in this regard can be drawn.

55. P.W.-3 Ishrawati Devi, has not
been cross examined, nor any suggestion
on behalf of the accused/appellants has
been given to the effect that her statement
in her examination in chief that Baiju,
Ganga and other members of their family
had not only made demand for colour T.V.
and motor cycle at the time of ''Gauna', but
also had repeated their such demand and
had also threatened that unless their
demand of additional dowry was fulfilled,
deceased will not be sent to her parental
house.

56. P.W.-3-Ishrawati, in her cross
examination has said that her husband after
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gauna had gone to take information of
welfare of her daughter at her in-laws
house, wherein again the demand of
additional dowry, by the husband and other
members of the matrimonial family was
made and for its non fulfilment, he was
insulted.

57. ''Gauna', after marriage of the
deceased with Baiju is not in dispute and
the death of the deceased occurred in her
matrimonial house is also not disputed. It is
also not defence of the accused that any
member of the family of the deceased had
participated in the cremation of the
deceased. Further, this fact has also been
questioned in the cross examination of any
of the aforementioned three witnesses that
after the Gauna, Ram Vilas did not visit the
matrimonial house of his daughter to
enquire about her welfare.

58. The visit of P.W.-1 Ram Vilas to
his daughter's matrimonial house is also
natural
and
trustworthy
because
accused/appellants had threatened not only
P.W.-1 Ram Vilas but also other members
of his family at the time of ''Gauna' that if
their demand of additional dowry was not
met deceased would not be allowed to visit
her house and it is also not the defence of
the appellants that after Gauna, the
deceased had ever visited her parental
house.

59. It is also evident from the above that
the evidence of P.W.-1 Ram Vilas and P.W.
3-Smt. Ishrawati Devi, in their cross
examinations, has not been challenged. Even
with regard to the torture to the deceased for
additional demand of dowry; frequent visit
after ''Gauna' made by P.W.-1 Ram Vilas and
during visit of P.W.-1 Ram Vilas to meet her
daughter at her matrimonial house, narration
of the deceased to P.W.-1 Ram Vilas about
the constant demand for additional dowry and
for its non fulfilment, putting the deceased to
torture has also not been challenged, nor in
this connection, on behalf of the accused
appellants suggestion/suggestions has/have
been put to the said witnesses.

60. Under the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, it is stipulated that if on
material
particulars/depositions
of
the
witnesses, in examination in chief, is not
challenged in the cross examination, then it
shall be presumed that such an unchallenged
portion of testimony of a witness is admitted
to the accused. It is also provided under
Indian Evidence Act, that if any fact is
admitted to other party, then that fact is not
needed to be proved by first party, as such the
above referred testimony of P.W.-1 Ram
Vilas and P.W.-3-Smt. Ishrawati Devi, has
not
been
challenged
in
their
cross
examinations, therefore, an inference against
the accused shall be drawn that such
evidence/facts are admitted to them.

61. It has also emerged from the above
that demand of additional dowry, not only at
the time of ''Gauna' but also thereafter was
made constantly and deceased was maltreated
on account of its non fulfilment. The
deceased was not happy after ''Gauna' till her
death and this fact was also brought to the
knowledge of P.W.-1 Ram Vilas during his
last visit which took place about one month
before the death of the deceased.

62. In Indian Evidence Act, the quantity
of the witnesses is not sine-qua-non to hold
conviction of an accused. Rather, charges
against an accused could be proved if
testimony of a witness is found natural,
independent, truthful and consistent.

63. Appellants/accused have denied to
have made demand for colour T.V. and
12 All. Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
853
motorcycle in between 13.03.2009 to
25.04.2004 and they have also denied in
their statements recorded under Sections
313 Cr.P.C. to have subjected the deceased
to torture for non satisfaction of demand of
additional dowry. Appellants/accused have
also denied to have subjected the deceased
with cruelty because of non fulfilment of
demand for dowry.

64. Appellants/accused have also
denied in their statements that after causing
dowry death to the deceased they had with
an intention to erase the evidence, as well, to
screen
themselves
from
the
legal
punishment,
they
had
cremated
the
deceased.

65. Appellants/accused have also
stated in their statements that the evidence of
P.W.-1 Ram Vilas, P.W.-2 Dashrath and
P.W.-3 Smt. Ishrawati, as well as First
Information Report (Exhibit-Ka-1) is false.

66. Accused/appellants, in their
statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have
not claimed to inform her family members
about the death of deceased.

67. P.W.-1 Ram Vilas has stated that
the factum of death and cremation of the
deceased was not communicated to him or
any member of his family.

68. P.W.-4 Radhe Shyam states in his
ocular evidence, recorded on 03.03.2012
before the learned trial Court that the
incident had occurred about three years prior
to the killing of the deceased; the deceased
Smt. Sangeeta was married with Baiju and
in third year after marriage, ''Gauna' of the
deceased had taken place. Further, he has
stated that accused/appellants have not
killed Smt. Sangeeta for non satisfaction of
any demand for additional dowry.

69. P.W.-4 Radheshyam turned
hostile, therefore, was declared hostile but
in his cross examination by the prosecution
he has not supported the version of P.W.-1
Ram Vilas, P.W.-2 Dashrath or P.W.-3
Smt. Ishrawati Devi. However, this witness
in his cross examination done on behalf of
the appellant/accused has stated that after
the death of Sangeeta, information about
the death by in-laws and the family of her
matrimonial house was sent at her village.

70.

Deposition
of
P.W.-4,
Radheshyam, pertaining to the information
of death of the deceased is vague and
ambiguous; he has not stated that which
member of the family of husband/accused
or Baiju himself had sent information to
any member of her parental family, nor this
witness has deposed that if any such
information he had received, the same was
shared by him with P.W.-1 Ram Vilas or
any of his family members.

71. Since P.W.-4 Radhe Shyam, has
turned hostile and appears he has been won
over by the appellants/accused, therefore,
he seems to have stated in his cross
examination
that
information
by
the
members of the matrimonial house of the
deceased was sent to her village. In our
opinion this piece of evidence of P.W.-4
Radhe Shaym, cannot be believed.

72. P.W.-5-Sharda, wife of P.W.-4
Radhe Shyam has also deposed before the
trial Court on 22.03.2012 that the deceased
was the daughter of her husband's elder
brother; about 5 years before her death, she
was married to Baiju and within a period of
three years, ''Gauna' of the deceased had
taken place. This witness like her husband-
P.W.-4, Radheshyam, has not supported the
prosecution
story.
In
her
remaining
examination in chief, she has feigned
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ignorance about the demand of any
additional dowry and for its non fulfilment,
the deceased was murdered by the
appellants/accused.

73. P.W.-5, Smt. Sharda, after she
was declared hostile was put to cross
examination on behalf of the State but she
has also not supported the prosecution story
in her cross examination.

74. P.W.-5, Smt. Sharda, has not been
cross examined by appellants/accused.

75. P.W.-6, Ram Samujh, in his
testimony recorded on 04.06.2012 before
the learned trial Court has said that three
years earlier Sangeeta had died; Sangeeta
was married with Baiju and thereafter,
''Gauna' had taken place, but he does not
remember exact time of Gauna.

76. P.W.6, Ram Samujh has also not
supported the prosecution story in his
remaining examination. Whereupon, he
was declared hostile and this witness in his
cross examination by the prosecution, has
also not given any evidence against the
appellants/accused.

77. P.W.-6, Ram Samujh, in his cross
examination done on behalf of the
appellant/ accused has denied his previous
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given
to the Investigating Officer. As such P.W.-
6 Ram Samujh, also does not support P.W.-
1 Ram Vilas, P.W.2-Dashrath and P.W. 3
Smt. Ishrawati Devi.

78. P.W.7, Smt. Reshma, wife of
P.W.-6, Ram Samujh, was also examined
before
the
learned
trial
Court
on
17.07.2012. She has admitted that three
years before ''Gauna' the marriage of the
deceased with Baiju was solemnized but
she
has
not
supported
remaining
prosecution story in rest of her examination
in chief. On the request of the prosecution,
P.W.-7 Reshma was declared hostile and
was allowed to be cross examined by
prosecution
but
she
in
her
cross
examination has denied to have given her
statement to the Investigating Officer.

79. P.W.-7, Smt Reshma, in her cross
examination
done
by
the
accused/appellants,
she
has
feigned
ignorance about the alleged incident. As
such the prosecution story does not find
support from the statement of P.W.-7
Reshma.

80. P.W.-4, Radhe Shyam, P.W.-5
Smt. Sharda, P.W. 7-Smt. Reshma, are not
the members of the family of the deceased
but they are informant's relative.

81. In such matrimonial matters it is
not common to share such dispute with
relatives, therefore, the evidence of P.W.-4,
P.W.-5 Smt. Sharda, P.W.-6 Ram Samujh
and P.W.-7-Smt. Reshma, with regard to
the alleged incident they have expressed
their ignorance about the incident is quite
natural and on the strength of their
evidence, depositions of P.W.-1 Ram Vilas,
P.W.-2-Dashrath,
and
P.W.-3
Smt.
Ishrawati Devi, can not be rendered shaken.

82. We are of the opinion that it is just
and proper to discard the evidence of P.W.-
4 Ram Dular, P.W.-5 Sharda, P.W.6- Ram
Samujh and P.W.7 Smt. Reshma.

83. P.W.8, Devendra Nath, Additional
Police Superintendent, who has conducted
the investigation in this case, states that on
26.03.2009 he was posted as Circle Officer
at Karenda and Criminal Case had
registered at Case Crime No. 226 of 2009
12 All. Smt. Jonha @ Jonhi Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
855
under Sections 498-A, 304, 201 I.P.C.