STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. PANKAJ BADONI
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. -
(1.) IN the instant case, the State seeks special leave to prefer an appeal against a judgment, whereby the respondents have been exonerated of the charge levelled against them by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution was commission of offences by the respondents, which are punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 and Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the INdian Penal Code, as well as the offence for which a punishment has been prescribed under the Dowry Prohibition Act. IN substance, the evidence led by the prosecution was that, after the marriage, the bridegroom wanted a double bed cot given at the time of marriage, to be replaced. One of the prosecution witnesses namely, the father of the deceased, stated that he heard from children that the bridegroom was saying, where is my gold chain and my motorcycle? The person from whom the father of the victim heard about the bridegroom saying, where is his gold chain and motorcycle, was not produced as a prosecution witness. The mother of the victim turned hostile. The postmortem report of the doctor, who prepared the postmortem report, stated that the death was suicidal in nature. There is no dispute that the death took place within 22 days from the date of marriage. Therefore, the first two limbs of Section 304-B of the INdian Penal Code stood satisfied. The third limb that, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, was not established, inasmuch as in that regard the evidence on record stood limited to the extent mentioned above. IN those circumstances, by the judgment and order sought to be appealled against, the persons accused were exonerated of the charge framed under Section 304-B of the INdian Penal Code. At the same time, inasmuch as, there is no evidence of cruelty being meted out at any point of time to the deceased in between the time she was married and she died, the respondents were also exonerated of the charge of Section 498-A of the INdian Penal Code. Since the charges under Section 304-B and 498-A failed, automatically, the charge under Section 34 failed.
(2.) HAVING regard to the nature of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, as discussed above, we are not inclined to grant special leave to the prosecution to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
It is recorded that we have come to the above conclusion on being assisted by the learned Brief Holder and, after perusing the materials on record, as have come from the lower court, but we have not been assisted by the counsel engaged by the respondents.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.