DIVYANSH PANDEY @ TINKOO PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1945 of 2019

Divyansh Pandey @ Tinkoo Pandey
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :   Anshul Tiwari, Lav Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :   G.A.

Court No. - 93
            HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1.Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
the appellants is taken on record.
2. This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 15.02.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.4, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No.563 of 2012, arising out of Case
Crime No.253 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sigara, District Varanasi.
3. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The First Information Report was lodged at the police station on the basis
of a written complaint, submitted by the informant Shivram Pandey, s/o Late
Shivakant Pandey, resident of village Gajadharpur, Police Station-
Rohaniya, District- Varanasi, submitted a written report on 03.07.2012 at
police station- Sigra, District- Varanasi. It was alleged that his daughter
Snehlata Pandey was married according to Hindu rites in the year 2010 with
Divyansh Pandey s/o Vinod Pandey, resident of village Sikhadh, Police
Station- Chunar, District- Mirzapur.
5. It was alleged that after about one year of marriage, his daughter went to
her matrimonial home. After two to three months, when she returned to her
parental home, she disclosed that her husband and his family members,
including her father-in-law, mother-in-law and elder brother-in-law were
demanding dowry in the form of Rs.50,000/- cash, a refrigerator and
washing machine. She further stated that she was subjected to cruelty,
harassment and physical assault on account of non-fulfillment of these
demands.
6. According to prosecution, on 21.07.2012, her husband Divyansh Pandey
allegedly, set her on fire at his residence situated at Soniya police station-
                                                          CRLA No. 1945 of 2019
                                2

Sigra, Varanashi, resulting in her death. It was further stated that in the
intervening night of 21/22.7.2012 an unknown person informed the
informant over the phone that his daughter had died due to burn injuries.
Upon receiving this information, the informant rushed to the matrimonial
home of his daughter and found her dead body lying in a burn condition on a
bed. The family members and relatives of the accused were also present
there.
7. On the basis of the said report, Case Crime No.253 of 2012 was registered
under Section 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. During investigation, the Investigating Officer conducted inquest
proceedings on the dead body, got the post-mortem examination conducted,
inspected the place of occurrence and took into custody relevant articles
from the spot, preparing seizure memo accordingly.
9. Statements of witnesses were recorded and upon completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons.
10. The trial court took cognizance and summoned the accused. Charges
were framed against them for offences under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
11. In support of its case, the prosecution examined, P.W.-1 Shivram
Pandey, P.W.-2 Asha Pandey, P.W.-3 Dr. Sanjay Sharma, P.W.-4 The
investigating officer Shoib Iqbal, P.W. -5 Constable Pramod Kumar Singh,
P.W.-6 Constable Vijay Bahadur.
12. Documentary evidence written report Ext. Ka-1, FIR Ext. Ka-2, post-
mortem Ext. Ka-3, site plan Ext. Ka-4, recovery memo of plastic can, match
stick, Kathari etc. Ext. Ka-5, charge-sheet Ext. Ka-6, carbon copy of FIR
Ext. Ka-7, copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-8, inquest report Ext. Ka-9, police paper
Ext. Ka-10, photo or dead body Ext. Ka-11, letter to CMO Ext. Ka-12 and
letter to R.I. Ext. Ka-13 and original FIR Ext. Ka-14 are available on record.
13. P.W.-1 Shivram Pandey, father of the deceased and P.W.-2 Asha Pandey
supported the prosecution version in their statements. Both witnesses stated
that the accused persons used to demand dowry and subjected their daughter
to cruelty, harassment and physical assault. They further deposed that they
had visited the matrimonial home of the deceased to persuade and counsel
the in-laws but even after she was sent back, the accused person continuing
to harass her. It was also stated that the deceased had informed them over the
phone about the continued harassment shortly before the incident, the
deceased had again called an complained whereupon she was assured that
her father would visit the next day to resolve the issue, however, on that very
                                                         CRLA No. 1945 of 2019
                                3

night, she was allegedly, killed by her in-laws. When the informant reached
the spot, he found the dead body of the deceased lying there.
14. P.W.-3 Dr. Sanjay Sharma proved the post-mortem report and deposed
that the body emitted a smell of kerosene oil. He further found a ligature
mark around the neck, measuring approximately 32 cm. x 3 cm. According
to the doctor, the ligature mark was antemortem in nature, whereas the burn
injuries on the body appeared to be post-mortem. He opined that the cause of
death was asphyxia due to hanging.
15. P.W.-4 the Investigating Officer proved the steps taken during
investigation including inspection of the place of occurrence at the instance
of the informant, preparation of the inquest report and other related
proceedings.
16. P.W.-5 Constable Pramod Kumar Singh proved the registration of the
case on the basis of the written complaint and the preparation of the chik FIR
and relevant entries in the general diary.
17. P.W.-6 Constable Vijay Bahadur, a witness of the inquest proceedings
proved the preparation of the inquest report and related documents.
18. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused
persons admitted the marriage and the fact that the deceased had gone to her
matrimonial home after about one year of marriage, however, they denied all
allegations made by the prosecution witnesses and claimed that they had
been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, the accused examined D.W.-
1 Chandrabali Yadav and D.W.-2 Rajesh Kumar. They also produced
documentary evidences relating to the medical treatment of the deceased.
19. After appreciating the entire evidence and material on record, the trial
court came to the conclusion that the ingredients of Sections 498A, 201, and
306 of the IPC were made out against the appellant, Divyansh Pandey.
Accordingly, he was convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to 10
years' imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000; under Section 498A
IPC to three years' imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000; and under
Section 201 IPC to three years' imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.
10,000. Co-accused Bindu Pandey alias Bindo Pandey, was convicted under
Section 201 IPC and sentenced to three years' imprisonment along with a
fine of Rs. 10,000. The remaining two co-accused persons were acquitted of
all charges by extending to them the benefit of doubt.
20. Aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence the present
appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant Divyansh Pandey on the
ground that the recording of the conviction of the appellant is perverse and
deserves to be set aside.
21. The learned trial court has ignored the fact that all the prosecution
                                                          CRLA No. 1945 of 2019
                                4

witness are closely related and interested witness, therefore, their testimony
is not worthy. The learned trial court has utterly failed to consider the
testimony given by defence witnesses D.W.-1 and D.W.-2. The order of
conviction suffers from manifest error of law and jurisdiction. The
conviction and finding imposed upon the appellant is against the weight of
evidence on record and legally bad in law.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court failed to
properly appreciate the evidence on record and has erroneously convicted
the appellant. It was argued that the death of the deceased was due to illness
and not on account of any act attributable to the appellant. It was further
submitted that there was no credible evidence of cruelty or abetement so as
to attract Section 306 I.P.C. it was also argued that the appellant has already
undergone the entire sentence of 10 years imprisonment and, therefore, he
does not want to press the appeal on merit.
23. Learned A.G.A. for the State supported the judgment of conviction and
sentence.
24. This Court has carefully examined the record, evidence and the findings
recorded by the trial court.
25. The testimonies of P.W.-1 Shivram Pandey, father of the deceased,
P.W.-2 Asha Pandey, the mother of the deceased consistently established
that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of
dowry demands. Their statements are natural consistent and inspire
confidence. Nothing substantial has been elicited in their cross-examination
so as to discredit their testimony.
26. The medical evidence as proved by P.W.-3 Dr. Sanjay Sharama clearly
indicates that death was not natural.
27. The presence of ante-mortem ligature mark around the neck and the
opinion that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to hanging belie the
difference plea of death due to illness. The additional finding that the burn
injuries were post-mortem further strengthens the prosecution case that an
attempt was made to give a different colour to the occurrence. The conduct
of the accused and the surrounding circumstances including the consistent
allegations of harassment and the proximity of such conduct to the death, he
has been established the guilt of the accused.
28. The acquittal of the co-accused persons does not dilute the specific role
attributed to the appellant. The trial court after appreciation of evidence on
record has rightly returned the finding of guilt and convicted and sentenced
the appellant. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgment
of conviction warranting interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to
be dismissed.
                                                                                            CRLA No. 1945 of 2019
                                                                   5


                                    29. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

                                    30. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 I.P.C. as
                                    recorded by the trial cour tis hereby affirmed.

                                    31. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be transmitted
                                    to concerned trial court for necessary compliance.

                                    April 15, 2026
                                    P. Pandey
                                                                                (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad