ANOOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-47
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 30,2013

ANOOP SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) P.W. 1 Suresh Singh wrote a complaint to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal on 29.04.1999 against Anoop Singh, Dheeraj Singh and Smt Sushma Devi, which was registered on the self same day at 4:00 P.M., as case crime No. 1/99 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Anoop Singh and Dheeraj Singh. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the prosecution opened it's case, charges for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 I.P.C., Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 201 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) P.W. 1 Suresh Singh, P.W. 2 Subhash Chandra Singh, P.W. 3 Smt. Kusum Devi, P.W. 4 Sultan Singh, P.W. 5 Jogendra Singh and P.W. 6 Prem Raj were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. D.W. 1 Jagdish Singh and D.W. 2 Bali Singh were examined on behalf of the defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted the accused persons, viz., Anoop Singh and Dheeraj Singh of the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 and 498-A I.P.C. Accused-appellants were sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2001, present Criminal Appeal was preferred.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through P.W. 1 Suresh Singh (informant), who said, in his examination in chief that Sushma was his younger sister, who was married to Anoop Singh on 21.5.1998. She was 21 years old when she was married. P.W. 1 went to Ludhiana after the marriage of his sister. On 23.4.1999, he came to know that his sister was killed by her in-laws. P.W. 1 reached his village on 24.4.1999. P.W. 1 went to the matrimonial home of his sister on 25.4.1999. P.W. 1 enquired about the reason of death of his sister. Her in-laws did not disclose anything specific. His sister had told P.W. 1 in October, 1998 that her in-laws demanded colour T.V. In January 1999, his sister told to P.W. 1 that her in-laws complained that no cash was given to them (her in-laws), who harass her on account of the same. On 26.9.1999, he went to patwari, who was on strike. P.W. 1 went to S.D.M. Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal on 28.4.1999, but S.D.M. was not available. He again went to S.D.M. on 29.4.1999 and gave the complaint (Ext. Ka-1). His sister never wrote a letter, because her matrimonial home was only at a distance of 5-6 kms. from her parental home. P.W. 1's parents died much before Sushma was married to Anoop Singh. Sushma was pregnant by seven months when she died. She was not cremated in P.W. 1's presence.;


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