# Virendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 326 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-09-12 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 6376 of 2010 - **Bench:** Siddharth, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-52590 - **Pages:** 21 ## Headnote (A) Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 506 Part I IPC - Acquittal in Dowry Death and Associated Charges - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506(I) , 9 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 327 498-A, 304-B, 201 , Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 372 - Perverse conviction - Uncorroborated testimony - Presumption under Section 113-B - Regulation 97 of the Police Regulation - original copy of the FIR shall be sent by the Superintendent of Police to the Magistrate forthwith having jurisdiction - Delay in sending report to the Magistrate makes the prosecution case doubtful - To attract the provisions of section 304-B IPC, one of the main ingredients for constituting the offence which is required to be established is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. (Para - 22,23,26,29) Appellants were convicted under Section 506(1) - P.W.-1's testimony was relied upon for conviction - P.W.-1 failed to prove allegations made in FIR and statement - Conviction was based on uncorroborated testimony of P.W.-1 - Acquitted under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the trial court - Appellants challenged conviction in appeal.(Para - 2 to 18,41) HELD: - Finding of trial court regarding conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 506 Part-I IPC is perverse and not based on any credible evidence. P.W.-1 failed to prove the allegations made by him in the FIR and also in his statement. conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 506(1) IPC on his uncorroborated testimony cannot be justified. Judgment and order of trial court is set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.(Para - 41,42) Criminal Appeal No. 6376 of 2010 allowed. Criminal Appeal Nos. 6365 of 2010, 6504 of 2010 U/S 372 Cr.P.C & Govt. Appeal No. 8242 of 2010 dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: ## Text _Characters 0–39,934 of 73,856. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39934 for what follows._ 326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES signature of the attendant of victim as witness or any family member of the victim was recorded on the dying declaration and even the signature of the Investigating Officer regarding receiving the same, as an endorsement is not there on record. (e) The Investigating Officer has not tried to find out who is the daughter of the sister-in-law of the victim who has doused the fire with the help of a blanket and no such persons is cited as eye witness. (f) PW-2, daughter of the victim has not stated that Jaydevi @Akhilesh pour kerosene oil and lit fire and even did not name any other person who doused fire. (g) The statement made by the victim Suman is in sharp contrast to the statement of the informant who is brother of the victim whereas he has named two ladies and specific motive is attributed to one Sajawati Devi wife of Ramkaran. It is the consistent stand of PW-1 that it is Sajawati Devi, sister-in-law of victim, who harassed her sister and was keeping a grudge against her. (h) PW-1 has nowhere attributed any motive to the appellant for pouring kerosene oil on the victim. (i) Therefore, there is material contradictions in the dying declaration and the FIR version which also raises suspicious about its admissibility. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the dying declaration (Ex.Ka.4). 44. It is worth noticing that the appellant Jaydevi as per custody certificate dated 24th September, 2024 has undergone eight years and five months of total sentence including remission and about six years and eleven months i.e. approximately seven years of actual sentence and she has no criminal antecedents. The appellant has her own family and children and prosecution failed to prove that she was related to victim in any manner. 45. In view of above, we find merits in the present appeal and the same is allowed. 46. Accordingly, the appellant; namely, Jaydevi @ Akhilesh is acquitted of the charges and she be released forthwith from the judicial custody, if not required in any other case. 47. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith. ---------- (2024) 9 ILRA 326 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. Criminal Appeal No. 6376 of 2010 With other connected cases Virendra Singh & Ors. ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: A.K.S. Solanki, Achyutta Nand Pandey, Bablu Singh, Dileep Kumar (Senior Adv.), Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, Rajrshi Gupta, Samit Gopal (Elevated), Sudhir Mehrotra, Vinod Singh Counsel for the Respondent: A.K. Singh, Aradhana Chauhan, G.P. Singh, G.S. Hajela (A) Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 506 Part I IPC - Acquittal in Dowry Death and Associated Charges - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506(I) , 9 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 327 498-A, 304-B, 201 , Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 372 - Perverse conviction - Uncorroborated testimony - Presumption under Section 113-B - Regulation 97 of the Police Regulation - original copy of the FIR shall be sent by the Superintendent of Police to the Magistrate forthwith having jurisdiction - Delay in sending report to the Magistrate makes the prosecution case doubtful - To attract the provisions of section 304-B IPC, one of the main ingredients for constituting the offence which is required to be established is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. (Para - 22,23,26,29) Appellants were convicted under Section 506(1) - P.W.-1's testimony was relied upon for conviction - P.W.-1 failed to prove allegations made in FIR and statement - Conviction was based on uncorroborated testimony of P.W.-1 - Acquitted under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the trial court - Appellants challenged conviction in appeal.(Para - 2 to 18,41) HELD: - Finding of trial court regarding conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 506 Part-I IPC is perverse and not based on any credible evidence. P.W.-1 failed to prove the allegations made by him in the FIR and also in his statement. conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 506(1) IPC on his uncorroborated testimony cannot be justified. Judgment and order of trial court is set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.(Para - 41,42) Criminal Appeal No. 6376 of 2010 allowed. Criminal Appeal Nos. 6365 of 2010, 6504 of 2010 U/S 372 Cr.P.C & Govt. Appeal No. 8242 of 2010 dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: 1. Ishwar Singh Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 2423 2. Marudanal Augusti Vs St. of Kerala (1980) 4 SCC 425 3. Mohd. Muslim Vs St. of U.P. (Now Uttarakhand) [2023 (124) ACC 932] 4. Kashmir Kaur Vs St. of Punj., AIR 2013 SC 1039 5. Prema. S. Rao Vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao, AIR 2003 SC 11, 6. Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh Vs St. of Maha., AIR 2013 SC 851 7. Yashoda Vs St. of M.P., (2004) 3 SCC 98 8. Kaliyaperumal Vs St. of T.N., AIR 2003 SC 3828 (Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.) 1. Heard Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants; Ms. Divya Ojha, learned A.G.A.-I for the State; Shri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel for the High Court and perused the material on record. 2. This criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 931 of 2006 (State vs. Virendra Singh and 4 others) connected with S.T. No. 949 of 2007 (State vs. Vishambhar) whereby the appellants were acquitted for offence under Sections- 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3⁄4 of D.P. Act. However, the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 506(I) IPC and awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant, Panna Singh, married 328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES his daughter, Kumari Bhumika, with the appellant no. 3, Manoj on 22.06.2024. Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and other goods were given in dowry to the accused-appellants but the accused persons used to demand one Maruti car more in dowry and used to torture his daughter. Whenever his daughter used to come to her parental home, she used to complain that the appellants are demanding a Maruti car and in case the same is not given to them she would be killed. During his posting at Rajkot from November, 2005 to February, 2006 her husband and appellant no. 3, Manoj Kumar, took her along with him and tortured her as a result of which she suffered pain in her legs but he did not got her treated. She informed her brother, Sanjay Singh, about the pain in her legs and her brother went to Rajkot to get her treated in the hospital. The informant, his son and two relatives went to Rajkot where they discovered that on account of beating, the disk of the waist of his daughter has got displaced and operation has become necessary. The appellants stated that only after their demand of car is fulfilled they will get the operation of their daughter conducted. On 21.05.2006 at about 1:30 p.m in the night her elder brother-in-law, Vishambhar Singh (Jeth), who was residing at Kwarsi in Aligarh, informed on phone that daughter of informant has fallen from the roof of his house and died. He is taking her dead body to village- Khempur. The informant and others went to Khempur and found that there were no signs of falling of his daughter from the roof on her body. Blue signs were found on her neck, head was fractured by causing of injuries by log or some sharp edged weapon and there were signs of injuries all over her body. When the appellants were going to cremate the dead body of his daughter, informant tried to inform the police which was opposed by the appellants and they started throwing bricks and stones on them. They threatened them to leave their place failing which they would also be done to death. He informed the police on phone and then police reached and after taking possession of dead body of his daughter, saved the informant and his relatives. 4. Complaint in this regard was made at the police station- Gabhana, District- Aligarh on 22.05.2006 at 11:00 a.m and it was registered as First Informant Report No. 17, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B and 506 IPC and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter on 22.06.2005 at 12:00 p.m the inquest proceedings were started which ended at 13:10 p.m. After inquest dead body of deceased was sent for post-mortem at 13:15 hours. 5. After submission of charge sheet charges were framed against the appellants under Sections- 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 506 IPC and Section 3⁄4 of D.P. Act on 14.03.2007. The appellants denied the charges and sought trial. 6. To prove the prosecution case, 8 witnesses were produced before trial court and examined. P.W.-1, Panna Singh, in his examination-in-chief, reiterated the contents of FIR. He further stated that on 31.05.2006 at about 10:30 p.m some policeman informed that his daughter has died. Thereafter, the elder brother-in-law of his daughter, Vishambhar Singh, informed him that his daughter has fallen from roof and has died and they are taking her dead body to village Khempur. When he reached Khempur along with his family members after five minutes the dead body of his daughter came in a Maruti van wherein the appellants, except Manoj and Balveer, were sitting. Manoj and Balveer followed them 9 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 329 on motorcycle. There were no signs of his daughter falling from roof on her body. There were blue signs on her neck. Head was fractured because of injury caused by log. On her entire body lacerated wounds and blue signs were present. Co-accused persons, were taking the dead body for cremation and when the informant tried to inform the police they started throwing bricks and stones on them and threatened them to leave otherwise they would also be killed. With great difficulty informant informed the police. Police took the dead body of his daughter in possession and saved them. Thereafter he got the report written by his son, Sanjay Singh, which was lodged at the police station. In his cross-examination, P.W.-1 admitted that in his report it is not mentioned that the appellants ever demanded any dowry from him or his other family members. In his cross examination, he stated that his son, Sanjay Singh and appellant, Manoj, both were employed in Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F) at Bombay Airport, but this fact was not known to him earlier and only after marriage of his daughter was settled with Manoj, he came to know of this fact. He further admitted that he did not enquired much about the appellant, Manoj, but from his son, Sanjay Singh, before marrying his daughter with appellant, Manoj. He himself enquired about his pay-scale and his service being permanent. He never went to see Manoj at Bombay but saw him in the village only. He never informed his son, Sanjay Singh, that the appellants are demanding any amount in dowry. In answer to reply whether his elder daughter, Prabha, was willing to marry at that time, the informant informed that she was not willing to marry because she was of religious temperament and did not wanted to get involved in the relationship of marriage. She was of saintly nature. He denied that appellant, Manoj, refused to marry his elder daughter, Prabha, and stated that he is willing to marry his younger daughter, Bhumika (deceased). He further stated that before marriage the accused persons never demanded any dowry but he spent money in marriage of his daughter on his own sweet will. They demanded Maruti car after her marriage. He admitted that he got the marriage of his daughter performed as an ideal marriage and the relatives of both sides appreciated the same. At the time of marriage his deceased-daughter, had passed intermediate examination and was studying in B.A privately. At the time of her death, she was in B.A.- IIIrd year. She had passed B.A. IInd year examination after her marriage. At the time of death her 7 papers of B.A.- III examination had concluded. After marriage, appellant, Manoj, had stated that he will not permit his daughter to study further. He never told appellant, Manoj, not to create hindrance in the study of his daughter. At the time of her death she was living in house of her elder brother-in-law, Vishambhar, at Aligarh and appearing in the examination of B.A.-IIIrd year. Her examination was concluding on 23.05.2006. In further cross-examination, P.W.-1 stated that he gave Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and other goods in dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter to the appellants but they were not satisfied and were demanding Maruti car. On account of non-fulfilment of demand of Maruti car they used to beat and torture his daughter. His daughter used to inform him of their conduct. He further stated in crossexamination that he gave the goods in marriage of his daughter willingly. He had prepared the list of goods given in dowry but had not taken signature of the appellant's side on the same. He had purchased some goods from market, some 330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES were already given by relatives and some were in his house. He admitted that he has no receipt of any goods purchased by him for giving it to his daughter in marriage. He named the banks from which he withdrew Rs. 4.8 lakhs but did not furnished any evidence of the same. He admitted that he did not mentioned in the report that the appellants were not happy with the dowry given in marriage nor he mentioned that his daughter informed him in this regard and he informed these facts to the Investigating Officer. He also admitted that he never made any complaint against the appellants regarding their unhappiness from dowry received by them. He admitted that before marriage he enquired about the financial condition of family of appellants and after being satisfied his daughter was married with appellant, Manoj. At the time of incident his son was at his home due to some holiday but he did not remembered the day on which he had come. He admitted that he was not present at the time of incident. When his daughter was residing at Vishambhar's house and appearing in B.A.- IIIrd year examination he and his wife never visited her. His daughter, Prabha, had gone to the place of appellant, Vishambhar. He reiterated that the first information about falling of his daughter was given by appellant, Vishambhar, on phone as mentioned in the FIR. He received information at about 10:30 p.m. After the dead body of his daughter arrived at village Khempur, he did not lodged the FIR because he wanted to see his daughter properly. Four persons accompanied him to the house of appellants, namely, Tejveer Singh, Gajendra Singh, Roshan Singh and his son, Sanjay Singh. They also did not made efforts to lodge the FIR. Since all wanted to see his daughter first. The appellants did not took out the dead body of deceased from Maruti van and it was taken out by the informant and his companions. He informed this fact to the Investigating Officer and if he did not mentioned the same in his statement he cannot say why. He admitted that when he reached village Khempur he did not had the phone. Police had not reached village Khempur at that time. It reached the village after he gave information to the police at about 09:00 a.m. He lodged the report on the next day at 11:00 a.m at P.S.- Gabhana. He further admitted in the crossexamination that neither he nor his son signed the inquest report. Dead body of the deceased was brought on jugaad after postmortem at about 03:00 p.m. He further stated that clothes of deceased were not taken by Investigating Officer and given to some villager. When he contacted him investigating officer took custody of clothes of deceased and prepared memo of the same. There were blood stains found on her clothes. He further stated that on 22.05.2006 at 09:00 a.m the accused did not wanted post-mortem of dead body of his daughter. When he objected appellants threw bricks and stones on them and they suffered simple injuries thereafter police was informed and it came. When he visited the scene of incident people pointed out to the place where dead body of his daughter lying. When he went to house where incident took place he found that the roof of the house was 22 feet above the khadanja (uneven road). People informed that they were told by appellants, Vishambhar and Manoj, that his daughter was lying dead on this place. They also informed that they never saw the deceased falling from the roof before them. He denied that the deceased fell down from the roof while she was talking on mobile phone with her husband and there was no boundary wall on the roof. He also denied that her husband, Manoj, was at Rajkot at 9 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 331 the time when she was talking to him on phone. He admitted that at the time of incident appellants, Virendra Singh, Pushpa Devi and Balveer Singh, were at village Khempur. He further stated that at the time of marriage of his daughter her elder brother-in-law, Vishambhar Singh, was employed in Rapid Action Force (R.A.F). Father of Vishambhar Singh, informed that he was posted at Aligarh. Later his daughter informed her father-in-law, Virendra Singh and his wife, Babita, reside at Aligarh. His daughter used to visit them. His elder sister-in-law, Babita (jethani), visited his place 2-3 times. His daughter used to come with Babita to his place and also go back with her. He does not knows where Babita resided at Aligarh. He had provided medicines to his daughter 3-4 times before she went with her husband to Rajkot. The pain in the legs of his daughter started 7-8 months after her marriage. These facts were not written by him in the FIR. When Manoj took his daughter he informed him about her treatment at Aligarh and Manoj informed that he will get her treated at Rajkot free of cost. Appellant, Manoj, took her to Rajkot in November, 2005 from his village. After one and a half months he came to know that Manoj was not getting her treated. This fact was informed to him by his son, Sanjay Singh. He himself did not went to Rajkot but sent his two brothers-in-law and his son. He went there only after he heard that his daughter is hospitalized. His brother-inlaw, Satish Kumar Singh, informed that his daughter was suffering from slip disk which requires operation. When he asked appellant, Manoj, to admit her in hospital he stated that unless Maruti car is given by him he will not get his daughter treated and appellant, Manoj, got her discharged from hospital. After hearing about the illness of his daughter he along with his brother-inlaw, Satish Kumar Singh and other brotherin-law, Sanjay Singh and son, Sanjay Singh, went to Rajkot which he mentioned in the FIR. He admitted that he did not mentioned in the FIR that he sent his brother-in-law, Satish Kumar Singh, alone to Rajkot who got his daughter admitted in hospital and thereafter discharged. He further admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter came to Aligarh for appearing in B.A.-III examination in February, 2006. Her B.A.-III examination was to conclude on February, 2006. His elder daughter, Prabha, used to visit her at Aligarh at the house of appellant, Vishambhar. His daughter used to give examinations sitting on chair. She had appeared in 7 papers without any problem. The information about problem of slip disk in her spine was discovered from M.R.I report and at the time of her death she was suffering from same problem. He never went to meet his daughter while she was giving examination from the house of appellant, Babita wife of Vishambhar. After 26th December, 2006, appellant, Manoj Kumar, never got her treated for slip disc. He does not know in which hospital M.R.I of his daughter was conducted. He denied knowledge of treatment of his daughter by appellant, Manoj, at Shri G.T. Seth, Orthopaedic Hospital, Rajkot, on 23.11.2005, 30.11.2005, 07.12.2005, 15.12.2005, 22.12.2005, 11.01.2006 and 24.01.2006 continuously and making payment of cost of medicine and obtaining receipts. P.W.1 stated that he did not mentioned in the F.I.R that information of death of his daughter was first given by the police personnel. He only talked with appellant, Vishambhar. He stated that this fact was not mentioned by him in the F.I.R because of being mentally disturbed, but he informed the Investigating Officer in this regard. Why he did not mentioned this fact 332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES in his statement he cannot say. He does not knows the mobile number from which calls were made to him. He stated that he did not lodged the F.I.R on the date of incident, but on the next day because he and his family members had not seen the dead body of the deceased and when they saw the injuries on the head and body of the deceased they decided to lodge the FIR. After her marriage his daughter came to his house 12-13 times and stated that Maruti car is being demanded by the appellants and they also beat her. He admitted that he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter 5-6 times and also meet with appellant, Vishambhar, about the same time. Sisterin-law of his daughter, Geeta, also used to come to his house along with his daughter. 7. P.W.-2, Kumari Prabha, daughter of P.W.-1 repeated the contents of F.I.R in her examination-in-chief. She also reiterated the contents of the statement of P.W-1 in her statement. In her crossexamination she stated that she has two elder sisters and the deceased, Bhumika, was her younger sister. P.W.-2 refused to marry. She denied that earlier her marriage was to be solemnized with appellant, Manoj, but she refused. She clearly stated that she never wanted to marry and her decision was known to her family members. She stated that after two months of marriage of deceased, she went to her matrimonial home and she was healthy. Before going to Rajkot she had come to her parental home 10-12 times. Whenever she came to her parental house she used to make complaint about being harassed for dowry by the appellants. She stated that prior to the incident she had gone to the house of appellant, Vishambhar, in Shankar Vihar Colony 8-10 times. He used to reside on the upper floor of the house with his family where her sister, Bhumika, was staying for appearing in B.A.-III examination. Whenever she went there no one misbehaved with her. She went to the house of appellant, Vishambhar, after the death of her sister where someone informed that her sister has been done to death. No one told her earlier that Bhumika has died. She was never informed that Bhumika was admitted in hospital. She herself was appearing in examination. She found dried blood on the body of deceased in the police station. She reached the police station after F.I.R was lodged. She stated in her crossexamination that she is giving statement on the basis of her statement noted on paper because she has habit of reading after writing on paper only. The deceased suffered pain in the legs because of beating by the family members of her matrimonial home. She also stated that the accused persons refused to get the deceased treated till their demand of Maruti Car is fulfilled. She stated that she had informed the Investigating Officer that her father and brother had gone to Rajkot in last week of December, 2005 but why this fact was not mentioned in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer she cannot say. She stated that she had informed the Investigating Officer that her sister had suffered slip disk due to torture by the appellants and was unable to climb the stairs. She requested the appellants to permit Bhumika to live with her and appear in B.A.-III year examination but they refused stating that appellant, Vishambhar and Babita, have their own house in Aligarh and Bhumika will stay with them and appear in examination. She had informed the Circle Officer that on 21.05.2006, appellant, Manoj, came from Rajkot to Aligarh and other appellants had also reached Aligarh. On 21.06.2006 at about 06:00 p.m phone call came calling all the persons to the house of Vishambhar. 9 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 333 She had informed the Circle Officer that she sensed that intention of appellants are not good. She had informed Investigating Officer that all the appellants in execution of conspiracy caused murder of her sister on 21.05.2006 by causing her injuries and if this is not mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she cannot say why. When the appellants were taking the dead body of her sister in Maruti van at 10:30 p.m in the night to village - Khempur for cremation, the police personnel informed her father. This fact was also informed by her to the Investigating Officer but he did not mentioned it in her statement. She clearly stated that the family members of matrimonial home of her sister did not indulged in any dispute regarding performance of her last rites. She had informed this fact to the Investigating Officer. She stated that when the dispute between the parties took place, she informed Investigating Officer that after dispute between the parties police was informed. She was not able to inform any phone number of her father nor her own mobile number to the police personnel informing about the death of her sister to the Investigating Officer. She could not state the phone number on which the deceased used to talk to her husband at Rajkot. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the Government Advocate got her statement prepared in writing but she did not read the statement of her father recorded earlier before the court. She did not asked her father what questions were put to him in a cross-examination. She admitted that she has written her statement because of habit and it has been prepared as the incident took place. She admitted that she had given her written statement to a Government Advocate and he may have left out something from her statement. She admitted that whenever Manoj used to come to village- Khempur, she used to go to meet him and her sister, Bhumika. She used to talk to appellant, Manoj. She used to talk to all the family members of matrimonial home of her sister. Prior to the death of her sister, she had gone to house of Babita and Vishambhar 8-10 times. It was situated on upper floor and consisted of one room only taken on rent. When Bhumika went to Rajkot, she had informed her that appellant, Manoj, was taking her for treatment. Manoj had come to Aligarh on the date of incident but she was not present in Aligarh. This was informed by Bhumika to her on telephone. When she went to house of Babita and Vishambhar, Manoj was not present. She stated that she had requested the appellants, including Manoj, to permit Bhumika to stay with her mama, Satish Kumar Singh, for giving examination but they refused. In the crossexamination, she was questioned as to how she named, Manoj, in her examination-inchief when he was not present at Aligarh and then she replied that Manoj informed him on phone that Bhumika will appear in examination from his brother's place. She stated that she saw the place of incident where no blood was found. It was wiped out. People informed that her sister was done to death. She had informed everything to her father. No one informed her that they saw Bhumika falling from upper floor of the house. 8. P.W.-3, Dr. K.P. Singh, testified before the court that blood was oozing from nose and ears of the deceased. He found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased :- (1) lacerated would 5cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the central vault of skull, 6 cm above from glabella. 334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2) Abraded contusion on top of left shoulder 3cm x 3cm. (3) Multiple abrasions 58cm x 8cm on outer side on left thigh and knee. (4) Multiple abrasions 3cm x 3cm on medial aspect of right knee. (5) Abrasion 2cm x 2cm in front of right wrist. (6) Abrasion 1cm x 0.1cm between thumb and index finger. 9. No injury was found on the face and back. In internal examination both the bones of parietal side of the skull was found to be broken. Membrane of brain was congested and redness was present. Cause of death was certified to be coma as a result of head injury. During crossexamination, P.W.-3, stated that injury no. 1 was situated 6cm above glabella. Glabella is situated between both the eyebrows. He stated that injury no. 1 started from glabella on frontal bone. Injury nos. 2 to 6 were found on non-vital parts of the deceased and the doctor stated that they can be caused by falling on rough surface like damar road (metalled road) and khadanja (uneven road). Doctor further admitted that if a person falls from a height of 22 feet he cannot have any control over his body and the injury shall be caused on the part which will hit the land surface. He accepted that if the deceased fell from the height of 22 feets on the road, the injury suffered by her could have been caused. Her clothes would also be torned. He stated that in the inquest report, he found that mehroon colour salvaar of the deceased was torned because of skidding on the rough surface. No visible injuries were found on the face, neck and back of the deceased. The deceased died due to coma. 10. P.W.-4, proved that he registered the case at the police station chik report whereof is present on the record. He also proved the G.D. entry in this regard recorded by him. He also proved that the application for lodging the FIR was written by the son of informant, Sanjay Singh. 11. P.W.-5, Nayab Tehsildar, Devraj Singh, proved that he got the inquest proceedings conducted. He proved that he himself wrote in the inquest report that salvaar of deceased was torned due to skid injury. He further prove that the clothes of the deceased were not taken by the police in custody before him. 12. P.W.-6, Circle Officer, Rajesh Kumar Singh, proved that case in dispute were registered at P.S.- Gabhana in his absence and its investigation was entrusted to him. In his cross-examination, P.W.-6 admitted number of procedural lacks committed by him during investigation, like not recording the time when he left for investigation in General Diary nor the time of reporting back to the police station. He admitted that he did not recorded the statement of Head Constable of police station. He did not stated even the date when he recorded the statement of informant nor he could tell the reason why the signatures of P.W.-1 were not taken on the FIR. He also did not tried to know when the chik FIR was sent to the court concerned. He admitted that who brought to the dead body of the deceased to the police station is also not mentioned by him in a case diary. He stated that P.W.-1 did not provided him any receipt of purchasing the goods given in dowry in the marriage of deceased. He also admitted that P.W.-1 did not provided him details of the bank accounts from which he withdrew the amounts for making payment of dowry in cash to the appellants. He admitted that P.W.-1 never informed him that his 9 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 335 deceased daughter used to inform him that the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry. He only informed that the appellants used to beat his daughter because of non-fulfilment of demand of Maruti car. He further admitted that when he took the copy of post-mortem report, he never informed him that the appellants did not cooperated with him after death of deceased nor he informed him that they started throwing bricks and stones. He stated that P.W.-1 only informed that the appellants started quarrelling on the issue of getting post-mortem of the dead body of deceased. He admitted that P.W.-1 never showed him the place of incident. He did not recorded the statement of any person of village Khempur, where the appellants resided. He did not went to the house where the deceased was residing nor he enquired from anyone in that locality. P.W.-1 informed him that appellant- Vishambhar Singh, informed him about the death of his daughter on account of falling from the roof and died on the spot. He also informed P.W.-1 that they are taking the dead body of deceased to village- Khempur. He admitted that Parcha No. 1 of the case diary was not in his hand writing. 13. P.W.-7, Circle Officer, Sunil Kumar Singh, proved that he got the investigation from earlier Investigating Officer, P.W.-6. Rajesh Kumar Singh. He proved that he recorded the statement of P.W.-1 and on his pointing out inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared site plan. At the time of inspection of place of incident, he recorded the statement of Mulayam Singh and Saurabh and further implicated the accused under Section 201 IPC. He proved that he recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses, thereafter he conducted the other tasks like arrest of the accused persons, incorporating details of inquest report, post-mortem, etc., in the case diary. He is not aware when chik FIR was sent to the court since no such entry was found on the F.I.R and no signature of C.J.M is present on the F.I.R. It is not mentioned in the application of P.W.-1 that family members of matrimonial home of the deceased ever demanded dowry nor any such allegation was made in the statement of P.W.-1 recorded by him. P.W.-1 also never stated before him that appellants ever demanded dowry. He admitted that in the entire investigation none of the witnesses informed him that any of the appellants demanded dowry in front of them. No one informed him that prior to the death of deceased any application was given to any authority regarding the demand of dowry by anyone. He did not enquired from which bank account Rs. 5 lakhs was withdrawn by P.W.-1 nor he provided any list of the goods purchased by him and given as dowry in marriage of the deceased. P.W.-1 also did not provided any documents regarding treatment of the deceased prior to her death but he was informed that appellants stated that unless their demand of dowry is met, they will not get the deceased treated. He admitted that he also did not enquired from the appellant, Manoj, whether he got deceased treated and, if yes, then where. He did not collected any call details to verify whether deceased ever informed anyone about her torture for demand of dowry. Mama of deceased, brother of deceased and P.W.-1 never informed him about any ticket or reservation details about their going to Rajkot to prove whether they went to Rajkot for getting the deceased treated in the hospital. He admitted that in the FIR P.W.-1 stated that demand of Maruti car was being made. He was not shown any evidence of throwing bricks and stones by 336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the accused persons on the prosecution side nor they were shown to the earlier Investigating Officer. During the investigation, it had come to his knowledge that information of death of Bhumika was given by family members of her matrimonial home to her father, P.W.-1, stating that she was strolling on roof of first floor and talking to her husband, Manoj, on phone when she fell down and died on account of injuries suffered by her and they are reaching village- Khempur with her dead body. During investigation he was never informed that any altercation took place between both the sides in the night of incident at village Khempur. He also stated that he was never informed by P.W.-1 that his one daughter is unmarried and involved in religious pursuits. He did not enquired why if the deceased was being tortured for dowry she was still living with the appellants, Vishambhar and Babita, and appearing for B.A.III examination from their house. At the place of incident at Shankar Vihar Colony, no one had informed him about beating and causing injuries to the deceased by anyone. No one told him that the deceased after suffering injuries was not in a position to walk and was made to walk by giving support. He did not found any sign of blood on the place of incident but admitted that the height of roof was 20-22 feet. 14. P.W.-7 further testified that P.W.-2 did not provided him any document regarding treatment of deceased nor he asked from P.W.-2, Kumari Prabha, why she has not married. He also stated that P.W.-2, never informed him that she went to Shankar Vihar Colony where deceased was residing and died at 10:30 p.m on the night of incident. He further stated that P.W.-2 never informed him that on the night of incident, husband of deceased, Manoj, had came back from Rajkot to Aligarh nor she informed him that on the night of incident husband of deceased and other family members of her matrimonial home had come to the place where deceased was residing. She also did not informed him that because of non-fulfilment of demand of a Maruti Car deceased was subjected to grievous injuries and she died of the same. She did not informed that deceased informed her about this on telephone nor she informed him about any telephone number. 15. P.W.-8, the third Investigating Officer, stated that he again recorded the statement of P.W.-1 and inspected the place of incident in the presence of witnesses, Asha Devi, Anokhe Lal, etc., on 18.09.2006 and submitted charge sheet against appellants in court against all of them except, Vishambhar Singh. Charge sheet was submitted against Vishambhar Singh later on 09.01.2007. He stated that witness, Asha Devi, informed him that Bhumika was strolling on roof talking on mobile phone on the upper floor of the house and she saw her there. After 15 minutes she heard the sound of her falling. She came out and saw the deceased lying on the road and raising cries. Anokhe Lal, informed P.W.-8, that he saw the deceased falling from roof. He enquired about deceased from Satendra who informed that he had come to know the deceased was wife of younger brother of Vishambhar, who is tenant on the first floor. The deceased was lying in the pool of blood and died soon. The other persons present on the spot approved the statements of Asha Devi, Anokhe Lal and also one Satendra. The appellants also informed him about the manner of incident as informed by the aforesaid witnesses. 16. The statement of the appellant, Babita, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who clearly stated that deceased was living with her at the time of incident 9 All. Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 337 and was appearing in B.A.-III examination. She was talking on phone with her husband on the roof of upper floor of her house and accidentaly fell down. Appellant, Pushpa, stated that she was in the village- Khempur at the time of incident. Appellant, Vishambhar Singh, stated that at the time of incident he was at Delhi and his family was residing in rented house at Aligarh where the deceased was also living for the purpose of appearing in B.A.-III examination. She fell accidentally from the roof top and died. Later he received information of this accident. Appellant, Manoj, husband of deceased, stated that on the date of incident he had taken leave and was coming to take back his wife, the deceased, whose examination was about to be concluded.