STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. YASHODA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Taking recourse to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., an FIR was lodged at the instance of PW1 Smt. Jamotri Devi, under the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 02.12.1998, on the basis of which, a chick FIR (Ex.Ka-3) was registered as case crime no.2/1998 under Sections 304-B / 201 IPC against father-in-law (since dead), husband and jethani (sister-in-law) of the victim at Patti (P.S.) Bichla Badalpur, Lansdowne on 04.12.1998. The incident took place on 01.11.1998. Although an unsuccessful attempt was made by PW3 Tajbar Singh Rawat to lodge FIR on 07.11.1998, yet the fact remains that there was inordinate delay in lodging the same.
(2.) Investigation began on the basis of said first information report. After investigation of the case, charge-sheets (Ex.Ka-6 & Ex.Ka-7) were submitted against Chawan Singh (father-in-law of victim), Jashoda Devi alias Yashoda Devi (sister-in-law of victim) and Virendra Singh (husband of victim) for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B & 201 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B & 201 I.P.C. Accused-respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
(3.) Pw1 Smt. Jamotri Devi, PW2 Kushendra Singh, PW3 Tajbar Singh Rawat, PW4 Ginderf Lal and PW5 Prem Raj were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that the prosecution witnesses told a lie, they (accused) never demanded dowry and were falsely implicated in the case. Accused Virendra Singh (DW1) and Dr. Mahesh Chandra (DW2) were examined in defence.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.