Decided on December 01,2014

Vaktusingh B Chauhan Appellant
Gajjar Kansingh Gadhiya Respondents


- (1.) None present for the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner has questioned the order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar acquitting respondent nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Sessions Court after appreciating the evidence found various infirmities therein and there is nothing on record which will require interference under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was noticed by the Trial Court that the allegation as regards dowry could not be established by the witnesses and in fact, evidence suggested that there was no demand for dowry. There was also no evidence for ill -treatment to the deceased. The evidence suggested that the deceased was not able to adjust with her in -laws and it was admitted position that time and again, efforts were made by her in -laws to get her back at her in -laws place. The evidence was found to be vague and general by the Trial Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the second respondent places on record the original affidavit suggesting that the petitioner has settled the matter with respondent no.2 who is the father of respondent no.1. From the affidavit, it appears that the petitioner had two daughters married in the same village. It also indicates that the gifts of marriage are also handed back to the petitioner. It also appears that one more petition being Hindu Marriage Petition No.50 of 2012 instituted by the sister of the deceased is also settled.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.