JUDGEMENT WRITING

RANDOM CASE LAW (FICTION)

THE COURT OF SESSIONS

<GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR>, <UTTAR PRADESH>

FIR NO. 9012/2011

UNDER SECTION: IPC 302, 498A,503,378

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 29-11-2011

POLICE STATION: GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

THROUGH S.H.O, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

 GREATER NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

……………. PRSECUTION

VERSUS

AJAY TYAGI, S/o AMAR CHAND TYAGI

AGE: 45 yrs.

R/o PARI CHOWK, ALPHA COLONY, GREATER NOIDA

GAUTA BUDH NAGAR, POLICE STATION

­­                                                                                …………………ACCUSED

FACTS

A couple namely Ajay and Pramila got engaged on 25-10-2010 and subsequently got married by 01-12-2010 arranged by the parents of the couple and purchased a 2-BHK house in greater Noida Within the few months of marriage Pramila discovered that her husband namely Ajay consumes alcohol. On seeing this she confronted Ajay, her husband to quit consuming liquors as she is not comfortable with it. On constant arguments being made by Pramila, Ajay quit alcohol. The couple was blessed with a baby boy which they named Amit. The couple were living happily but later on, one day Ajay came home from office fully drunk and on seeing this Pramila shouted at her. After quarreling for some time Ajay under the influence of alcohol slapped her and the same scenario continued for months. One day Pramila decided to speak to his brother regarding the problem and her brother suggested her that he would speak to his husband and subsequently he did talk and things got normal.  After few days similar condition arose and Pramila’s brother decided to bring her to his house. Ishwar, on seeing his sister’s condition helped her find a 1-BHK flat and Pramila shifted to the flat with his son. Pramila after finding that she won’t be able to make ends meet in her house arranged by her brother, initiated proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance of her child and herself. 

When Ajay got to know that a case has been initiated against him, he visited her wife and told her to take back the case but Pramila refused. On November 11, 2011, the husband went to the room of the wife in the evening and asked the her to withdraw the maintenance proceedings. since, Pramila had no means to maintain herself and her son, she refused to withdraw the proceedings. Again, after a fortnight husband went to the house of Pramila. The Ajay visited her under the influence of alcohol and knocked the door, Pramila opened the door and let him in. On entering the room, Ajay took an iron rod and inflicted a blow on the head of Pramila causing blood bath leaving her unconscious. The accused Husband Ajay took some money from the almirah ran away. The son of the deceased started weeping loudly. His cries attracted the attention of the landlord Shankar who in turn woke up his wife and other tenants and rushed to the room occupied by the deceased. On entering the room, he found that the deceased was lying injured seriously. On enquiry being made, the deceased told him and other tenants that as she had refused to withdraw the maintenance proceedings, her husband had inflicted blow on her head with a stick. The landlord of the house and other tenants immediately shifted the deceased to the Hospital where she was declared brought dead. The Investigating Officer prepared spot Panchama and seized iron rod used in the commission of crime. Blood stained chadar from the spot was also attached. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of those persons, who were found to be conversant with the facts of the case. The Medical Officer, in-charge of the Hospital, conducted Postmortem. The accused was arrested on November 28, 2011. The accused Ajay was charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 498-A, 378 and 503 of the I.P.C.   

JURISDICTION

The case is to be tried in Court of session and therefore committed to the Court of Session and since the crime is committed in the state of Uttar Pradesh in Greater Noida, the Gautam Budh Nagar District & Sessions Court will try the case.

CHARGES FRAMED

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

EVIDENCE

Whether the accused has murdered his wife u/s 302?

  1. After the son of the deceased started weeping loudly due to which landlord Shankar who in turn woke up his wife and other tenants and rushed to the room occupied by deceased. He found that the deceased was lying injured seriously and the fact that the deceased on enquiry by the tenants and other tenants told the cause of her death and this thing falls under the dying declaration Sec u/s 32(1). Where she said that as she had refused to withdraw the maintenance proceedings u/s sec 125 of CrPc against the accused, he inflicted blow on her head.

 This statement becomes relevant u/s 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

  • The opinion given by doctors after doing the post mortem report is relevant u/s 45.
  • The cry of the child and the gathering of the other tenants forms the part of the same transaction and whatever happens are relevant u/s 7.
  • Sec 7 of IEA is also implacable or relevant here because after the discovery of blood stained chadar and the deceased lying on the floor in serious condition becomes the effect of the murder.

The motive for the commission of the crime could be to withdraw the maintenance

Proceedings against Accused wife. This could be proved through the fact that that the accused

visited the deceased on November 11, 2010 to withdraw the maintenance proceedings which was denied by the deceased.

Whether the accused has done theft in his wife house u/s 378?

In the case accused is guilty of section 378 of IPC as it is clearly mentioned in facts that ‘The accused took the amount lying in the room and ran away’ which clearly show s that accused has done theft in the house of deceased after performing murder, so he would be charged under section 378 of IPC.

Whether the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty u/s 498A?

 The deceased was subjected to cruelty can be seen from the fact that the deceased used to live separately from her husband. She was ill treated by her husband. Therefore, she went to her brother’s house. After a compromise she was sent back to her matrimonial home but again she was ill-treated by her husband are relevant facts under section 9 of IEA as it shows that the relation between the two parties were bad. The deceased started living on a rent with her son supports the inference that she was subjected to cruelty which led her to live separately from her husband. Thus, this fact also becomes relevant u/s 9. Similarly, the statement by the deceased’s brother Ishwar can also be used to corroborate this fact in issue u/s 59.

JUDGEMENT

<26-10-2012>

Circumstantial evidence is used to build the case. As a result, the chain of circumstances must be complete and unmistakably points to the accused’s guilt.

This court finds the accused guilty under sections 302, 378, and 498 A of the IPC.

The court also finds the accused guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in one of the important cases in which some guidelines were established.  The woman must be married; ii. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment; and iii. The cruelty or harassment must have been perpetrated by the woman’s husband or a relative of her husband.

S. 498A does not only address harassment committed with the intent of coercing a person. Woman to meet an illegitimate demand for property, etc., but also any willful conduct on her part of the husband 1 (2009) 6SCC 757 that endangers the wife’s life, limb, or health well-being (whether mental or physical).

It is undeniable that the accused was the deceased’s husband. The deceased was mistreated by her husband, as evidenced by the fact that she fled to her brother’s house after being tortured by him. Even after the deal, the accused continued to mistreat her. Finally, she became so distressed by the accused’s behavior that she decided to live separately in Noida. This fact is supported by the deceased’s brother Ishwar’s statement. As a result, the accused is found guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Court used State vs. Rakesh Kumar & Another on 6 April, 2018   were the

Accused Rakesh   Kumar (husband) and   Leela (mother-in-law) had

Subjected   Sunita   to   cruelty   on   account   of   demand   of   dowry and

Sunita was found dead in her matrimonial house i.e., T¬111, Gali No.2,

Tukamirpur, Delhi after accused Rakesh Kumar had strangulated and

throttled her, so this case is somehow related to our case because here the

wife was also subjected to cruelty u/s 498a and she was murdered so accused

guilty u/s 302 of IPC. Court also refers the State vs. Sumit on 2 September,

2016   Where facts were also similar and charge too. Court refers 

M/S Indian Oil   Corporation vs M/S Nepc India Ltd., & Ors on 20 July, 2006 on the

charge of sec 378 theft to prove the charge of theft on the accused.

After referring these case and cross checking all the facts given by both parties the

court convicts the accused under section 302 ,378 and 498A of Indian Penal Code,

1860. This court is sentencing him for rigorous imprisonment for life and for the

offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, fine of Rs. 10k for the offence of theft and rigorous

imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500 for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.