STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GARG
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
ASHOK KUMAR GARG
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PW1 Suresh Kumar Gupta wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Inspector Kotwali, Dehradun, on 17.08.2000, enumerating the facts contained therein that his daughter Priti was married to Navin Kumar Garg on 23.06.1999. Certain articles were given by PW 1 in the marriage according to his capacity, but in-laws of Priti were not satisfied with the same. They started harassing Priti for bringing lesser dowry and raised a demand of Rs. 50,000/-, to which the victim declined keeping in view the financial condition of her father i.e. PW 1. A male child was begotten by Priti on 13.08.2000. On receiving the said news, PW 1 along with his wife (PW 5), Kanwar Sain Singhal (PW2) and Mahendra Kumar Gupta (not examined) went to see Priti in her matrimonial home, whereupon they were not permitted to meet her (Priti). The in-laws of Priti insisted that PW 1 should sign over a blank paper. PW 1 came to know that Priti was admitted in a nursing home. PW 1 along with others went to meet Priti, who requested PW 1 to fulfill the demand of her in-laws. PW 1 said that he will try to meet such demand. On 16.08.2000, PW 1 was intimated on telephone that the condition of Priti has worsened and was admitted in Jain Hospital. When PW 1 along with others went to Jain Hospital, he found that Priti was in unconscious state. She died on 17.08.2000.
(2.) On the basis of said first information report, which was registered as case crime no. 681/2000, under Sections 304B, 498A and Section Dowry Prohibition Act, in PS Kotwali, Dehradun, investigation began. Investigating Officer took the statements of informant and other witnesses, conducted inquest, sent the dead body for postmortem and also sent the viscera to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completing the investigation, and finally on being satisfied that accused-respondents have committed the offence, submitted a charge sheet (Ext. Ka-11) against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
(3.) When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused-respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 11 prosecution witnesses, namely, PW 1 S.K.Gupta, PW 2 Kunwar Sain, PW 3 Akash Gupta, PW 4 Dr. G.P.Painuli, PW 5 Smt. Krishna Devi, PW 6 Dr. Ashutosh Mathur, PW 7 Dr. Vimal Nautiyal, PW 8 Dr. Alok Tewatia, PW 9 Const. Narendra Giri, PW 10 ASI Nav Kishore and PW 11 Vijay Gautam were examined on behalf of prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons 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 for the offences punishable under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused persons, present Government Appeal was preferred.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.