STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. SURESH AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-135
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 10,2013

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Appellant
VERSUS
Suresh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Pw 2 Manglanand lodged the first information report against Suresh and mother of Suresh, Guru Prasad and Shoula, on 27.01.2001, at 6:10 p.m., in PS Chamba, Tehri Garhwal, which was registered as case crime no. 30 of 2001, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A ,304-B IPC and Section Dowry Prohibition Act. The incident was alleged to have taken place on 22.01.2001. The distance between the place of occurrence and the PS concerned was 13 kilometers. After the investigation, a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted against Suresh, Guru Prasad, Smt. Shoula Devi and Smt. Bisla Devi. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, and 304B IPC were framed on 5th July, 2001. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) Pw 1 Sita Devi (mother of the victim), PW 2 Manglanand (informant, father of the victim), PW 3 Bali Ram, PW 4 Murlidhar Petwal, PW 5 Head Constable Shri Chand Singh, PW 6 Head Constable Lalita Prasad, PW 7 Purshottam Prasad Bahuguna, PW 8 Dr. Manoj Badoni and PW 9 Harpal Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the persons, in reply to which they said that they have been falsely implicated in the case. DW 1 Prem Dutt was examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, all the accused were exonerated of the charges levelled against them, vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2002. Aggrieved against the impugned order, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State.
(3.) The marriage of victim with accused Suresh was solemnized on 18th November, 1999 and the victim died on 22.01.2001, within one year and three months of the marriage. The postmortem report indicated that the cause of death of the victim was asphyxia, as a result of hanging. It is thus established that Sarita (victim) died within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than in normal circumstances. Two limbs of 'dowry death' were therefore established. In order to prove the dowry death, the prosecution is required to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. If the 3rd limb is also proved, then such death shall be called 'dowry death' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death, as per Section 304-B IPC.;


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