- (1.) HEARD learned AGA and perused the trial Court judgment and record.
(2.) THIS application for leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Gorakhpur dated 27.9.2011 acquitting the accused respondents in S.T. No. 241 of 2003, under Sections 304B, 201, 302 I.P.C. and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case, a report was lodged by the informant Narsingh, maternal uncle of the deceased Geeta, on 31.7.1990 stating that the alleged incident took place on 1/16.6.1990 in the night. He further stated that in the night in question the deceased had been done to death and in the morning of 16.6.1990 at 8 A.M., the body of the deceased was cremated in a grove next to the village. On 16.6.1990, the informant had learnt from an unfamiliar person about this incident, whereupon he reached at the house of the deceased. He further alleged that because of lack of dowry, Geeta, the deceased, had been done to death. The trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that the report was lodged 1 ? months after the incident took place and that the mere claim of the prosecution that the informant was trying to contact the police and superior authorities was unacceptable considering the inordinate delay.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the father of the deceased reached at the house of the accused respondents on the day subsequent to the death. The defence witness DW1 Kodai Singh has been examined. He stated that the deceased was ailing from cholera because of which she suddenly died. PW2 Shyambodh Singh denied that there was any demand of dowry from the deceased or that she was tortured or that because of the same he had learnt that the deceased had been done to death by giving poison. He was declared hostile.The same testimony was also given by PW3-Ram Karan Sigh, who was also declared hostile PW4 Surya Narayan, father of the deceased, stated that the deceased Geeta was born at her matrimonial uncle's house and that he also deposed on the basis of hearsay. The trial Court has further observed that there was no mention of any dowry demand in the FIR. It was further observed by the trial Court that there is no evidence of cruelty in connection with dowry demand soon before the death. Apart from the aforesaid evidence there was no other evidence to support the dowry demand. There is no other witness who has deposed about the dowry demand.;