STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. MOHAN SINGH
LAWS(UTN)-2012-12-35
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on December 20,2012

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Appellant
VERSUS
Mohan Singh and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) PRESENT Government Appeal was preferred by the State of Uttarakhand against the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2005, whereby accused -respondents Mohan Singh, Kailash Singh and Smt. Jayanti Devi were acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 498, IPC, 304B, IPC and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act. PW 3 Umed Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka -2) to S.O. Kotwali, Pithoragarh on 30.9.2004, enumerating the facts contained therein that his daughter Poonam was married to accused -respondent Kailash on 26.5.2003. Soon after the marriage, Poonam's in -laws started demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000. They also demanded an ornament on the occasion of rakshabandhan. Poonam's in -laws started harassing Poonam on account of non -fulfilment of dowry. Poonam made a complaint of the same to the informant and his wife. Poonam's dewar (brother -in -law) Banti also used to made obscene gestures to Poonam. When Banti's complaint was made to his mother, Banti also started teasing her. Poonam informed her parents that she would come to them and explain everything in detail. Poonam's in -laws refrained Poonam from coming to her parental house on 27.9.2004 and 28.9.2004. She was killed on 28.9.2004. Chik FIR (Ext. Ka -7) on the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka -2) was registered on 30.9.2004 at 12:30 p.m. as case crime No. 1296 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC in PS Kotwali, Pithoragarh.
(2.) ON the basis of said first information report, which was registered as case crime No. 1296 of 2004, the investigation began. PW 6 B.R. Arya (Circle Officer) took the statements of the writer of first information report and the informant PW 3 Umed Singh. Thereafter, he inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site plan, recorded the contents of inquest report in case diary, took the statements of other witnesses, affected arrest of accused -respondent Mohan Singh, prepared memo of arrest, affected arrest of accused -respondent Jayanti Devi, prepared memo of arrest of Jayanti Devi, sent viscera to the Forensic Science Laboratory, obtained the report, affected arrest of the third accused -respondent Kailash Singh and finally on being satisfied that the accused -respondents committed the offences punishable under Section 498A, IPC, Section 304B, IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, charge -sheets (Ext. Ka -15 & Ext. Ka -17) were submitted. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against the accused -respondents Mohan Singh, Kailash Singh and Jayanti Devi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Six prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Dr. Narendra Sharma, PW 2 Smt. Anandi Devi, PW 3 Umed Singh, PW4 Devki Nandan, PW 5 Const. Ramesh Lal, and PW 6 B.R. Arya were examined on behalf of prosecution. No witness was examined in defence. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused -respondents under Section 313, Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegations and said that they were falsely implicated in the case. After considering the evidence on record, learned Trial Court acquitted accused -respondents of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused -respondents, present Government Appeal was preferred.
(3.) PW 1 Dr. Narendra Sharma conducted autopsy on the dead body of victim. According to post -mortem report (Ext. Ka -1), no ante -mortem external injury was present. According to PW 1, the cause of death of victim could not be ascertained and therefore, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis.;


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