MAZHAR ALAM Vs. SIRAJUDDIN
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-13
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on September 07,2012

NIZAMUDDIN,Mazhar Alam Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND,Sirajuddin And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 is by the informant, who deposed as PW1. According to the First Information Report, which resulted in filing of a charge-sheet, the husband of the sister of PW1, who deposed as PW2, and members of his family harassed PW2 with a view to coerce her and PW1 to meet unlawful demand of dowry. It was also alleged that PW2 was assaulted in such a manner that she suffered grave injury. In the circumstances, in the charge-sheet, it was alleged that the respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 and the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 are guilty of offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as also of those punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) The trial court framed charges in line, as was suggested in the charge-sheet. The trial court also convicted respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 and the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 for offences punishable under the said Sections. On appeal, conviction against the respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 has been set aside, but conviction against the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 has been upheld. The reason for allowing the appeal in favour of the respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 is absence of evidence to prove the ingredients of those Sections. The reason for upholding the judgment against the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 is that he being the husband of PW2, on fulfillment of the dowry demand, revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 would have got the motorcycle.
(3.) In the circumstances, while PW1 has filed Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 challenging that part of the judgment of the appellate court, by which, the judgment of the trial court, insofar as the respondents to the said revision are concerned, has been set aside; revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 has challenged that part of the judgment of the appellate court, by which, conviction against him has been upheld.;


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