STATE OF U.P. Vs. AJIT PANWAR
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-15
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on September 04,2012

State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) Appellant
VERSUS
Ajit Panwar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal, preferred under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 31.5.1999, passed by 1st Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 41 of 1998, whereby said Court has acquitted the accused/respondents Ajeet Panwar, Prem Singh, Sanjay Singh, Dayawati and Sunita from the charge of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appeal is received by this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) for its disposal from Allahabad High Court. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower Court record.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the accused/respondent No. 1 Ajit Singh Panwar got married to complainant Usha Panwar (PW1) on 20.2.1992 at Dehradun. Her father Tara Chand gave sufficient dowry as his status allowed it. It is alleged that the accused/respondents were not happy with the dowry given by the father of the complainant and they demanded Rs. 25,000 for running business by Ajit Panwar. It is also alleged by the complainant that the accused/respondent No. 2 Prem Singh (father-in-law) attempted to set her on fire. Accused/respondent No. 3 Sanjay is brother-in-law of the complainant, Accused/respondent No. 4 Dayawati is mother-in-law of the complainant and accused/respondent No. 5 Sunita is sister-in-law of the complainant. The complainant lodged First Information Report on 1.3.1993, after about a year of her marriage at Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun, complaining threat and harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry against the accused/respondents. On the basis of her report Crime No. 231 of 1993 was registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, PW3 Sub-Inspector R.K. Kannojia appears to have submitted charge sheet against the accused/respondents Ajeet Panwar and his father Prem Singh for their trial in respect of the aforesaid offences. Later, a separate charge sheet was filed for the trial of remaining accused/respondents relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of I.P.C. and one punishable under Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(3.) After giving necessary copies to the accused and hearing the parties, the Magistrate appears to have framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of I.P.C. and one punishable under Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the accused/respondents Ajit Singh Panwar, Prem Singh, Dayawati, Sunita and Sanjay Kumar on 14.10.1996, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW/1 Usha (complainant), of August 1992 at Chandpur, away from Dehradun, PW2 Rajendra Prasad (brother of the complainant) and PW3 Sub-Inspector R.K. Kannojiya (who investigated the crime) the evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in reply to which, only the marriage between the accused Ajit Panwar and complainant Usha was admitted and rest of the allegations in the evidence were denied. In defence DW1 Furkan A. Alam (a employee of Sales Tax Department) was got examined to show that accused/respondent No. 2 Prem Singh was on sic is already exist in source.;


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