RAM DAYAL GOYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-222
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 30,2013

Ram Dayal Goyal Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Smt. Sandhya Goyal moved a complaint against her husband Ram Dayal Goyal and four others on 17.10.1997, for the offences punishable under Section 498- A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It was stated that she was married to Ram Dayal Goyal on 06.12.1996 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Haridwar. The father of the complainant spent a good amount of money in their marriage. The accused (persons) started harassing the complainant for bringing dowry. She was castigated for not bringing sufficient dowry. The complainant informed the same to her father through the letters. On 10.04.1997, the accused (persons) threatened her that she would be killed. When the complainant heard the same, she ran away from her matrimonial home and reached her parental home on 11.04.1997. On 20.04.1997 and 24.05.1997, her husband came to meet her. He was persuaded by the parents of the complainant to abandon his demand, but to no avail. The complainant went to PS Jwalapur to lodge the report, but the same was not registered. The complainant gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, but the police did not lodge any first information report. She had no option, but to file a criminal complaint.
(2.) After the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded, the accused Ram Dayal Goyal was summoned to face the trial. Evidence of PW 1 Sandhya Goyal, PW 2 Ram Krishna Agrwal, PW 3 Savita Agrawal and PW 4 Rajbir was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. Charge was framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 498-A IPC, Section Dowry Prohibition Act and claimed trial. Same set of prosecution witnesses were examined under Section 246 Cr.P.C. After the complainant's evidence was over, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he said that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, vide judgment and order dated 21st September, 2005, convicted the accused Ram Dayal Goyal of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, a criminal appeal was filed by him in the Court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who dismissed the appeal, vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2008 and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present Criminal Revision was preferred.
(3.) Learned Trial Court, in his judgment, has given the details of the complainant's evidence. He has appropriately dealt with the same. Relying upon the letters sent by the complainant, which were exhibited by the Court below and the ocular evidence tendered by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4, learned Special Judicial Magistrate found that the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC were made out against the accused, who was husband of the complainant. Learned Trial Court, in it's judgment, considered the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC and the ruling given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Neither there was any illegality in the judgment of the Trial Court, nor any illegality was pointed out during the course of hearing of Criminal Revision. ;


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