CASE SUMMARY:- RAJESH PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. (25 March 2009)

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 136967
Jump to navigation Jump to search

== CASE TITLE: ==

CASE SUMMARY: RAJESH PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P.. [DATE OF JUDGMENT-[25 March 2009 & CITATION- (2009) INSC 622]

FACTS OF THE CASE:


The accused appellant is the resident of village Budhanna, police station chandpur, district fatehpur. The complainant-informant, Shiv Balak Tiwari is resident of village Garhi, police station Jafarganj, district Fatehpur. Smt. Rekha (hereinafter referred as deceased) was daughter of complainant, Shiv Balak Tiwari. Who was married with the accused-appellant, Rajesh pandey about five years back to the occurrence in question the accused-appellant Kallu shivdhani is the father of the appellant Rajesh Pandey, Smt Rama is daughter of kallu shivdhani and Smt. Shanti Devi is his wife. There by Rajesh pandey is husband, kallu Shivdhani is father in law for Smt. Rekha, Smt. Shanti Devi is mother –in- law and Smt. Rama is sister-in-law of the deceased.


The marriage had been performed according to Hindu rites. In the marriage, dowry etc. was given by complainant-informant according to his capability but the accused-persons were not happy. They were demanding buffalo, golden chain and 20,000/- in cash in dowry and for that they were torturing the deceased, who used to make complaints regarding her harassment and torture by her husband and in laws to her parents. The complainant informant repeatedly made attempts to persuade the appellants not to torture his daughter. He also told them that he was not in the position to fulfill their demands.

On 07.07.2000 at about 1:00 PM the complainant was informed that in-laws of his daughter burnt her alive by pouring kerosene oil on her. It was also informed that before burning, she was beaten by them. When the complainant-informant with his associates went to the house of in laws of his daughter, the village people told him about the incident. No one was available at the house of accused-person expect the minor child of deceased Smt. Rekha. The village people told the complainant-informant that the neighbors had taken Smt. Rekha to some hospital in Qasba Amauli district Fatehpur on a tractor where she died. The dead body of deceased was lying at the house of accused persons. Just before the day of occurrence on 06.06.2000, Vinay Kumar, the youngest son of complainant-informant had gone to the house of accused- appellants and met his sister Smt. Rekha who had told him about harassment and torture etc. made by the accused appellants for dowry. The deceased had given a letter in which the entire facts were disclosed.

The complainant lodged report of occurrence to the police station, chandpur district fatehpur on 07.07.2000. The police registered the case under section 498-A 304-B IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Act, against the accused appellants. Police carried out their investigation and submitted report before the court.

But the accused-appellant denied the allegation regarding demand of dowry, torture and about causing death of deceased. They further stated that all proceeding were conducted by the police was on false consideration. The accused-appellant Rajesh Pandey further alleged that Smt. Rekha was desirous of partition of ancestral house and when she failed in her designs, she committed suicide by burning herself. He further stated that the prosecution witnesses have given evidence against him under undue pressure of on ram Bharosey Tiwari. Smt. shanti Devi stated that she was residing separately and she did know how the deceased died. She also stated also stated about partition of house as stated by the accused appellant Rajesh pandey. The accused appellant shivdhani also took same defense. The Smt. Rama Devi stated that she was a married lady and had to the house of parents and was living in temple separately. She stated that she did not how she died.[1]

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

1. Whether the appellants found guilty of offences or not.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:


After the completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Trial court convicted the appellants under section 498A and 304B IPC and section 3 and 4 of the act.

High court allowed the appeal of the co-accused persons. But the appeal was dismissed so far as it relates to the present appellant. Trial court and High court have with reference to the evidence on record categorically held that it was not a case of suicide. They referred to letter to conclude about the demand of dowry and torture meted out to the deceased. The conviction as record cannot be faulted. However the sentence is reduced to eight years. If the appellant has served said period of sentence he shall be released from custody forthwith unless required to be in custody in any other case.

Supreme Court held that:

It has considered the evidence on record. The court decided to stick with the decision of high court. It finds that the accusations have been established by cogent evidence and Minor variations in evidence cannot affect the credibility of the prosecution version.

REFERENCES