- (1.) HEARD learned AGA and perused the trial Court judgment and record. This application for leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Meerut acquitting the accused respondents under Sections 498A, 323, 307/149 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) THE FIR in this case was lodged on 8.5.2006 at 10.40 P.M. It is alleged in the FIR that Smt. Saidaraja alias Guddan, daughter of the informant Smt. Tasleem Jahan, was married to the accused respondent Saleem Akhtar on 1.12.2004 and sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but the accused persons were dissatisfied. In January 2005, the informant had given Rs.50,000/ -for sending her son -in -law Saleem Akhtar to Saudi Arabia but the accused respondents were not satisfied and wanted an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/ -. When she pleaded her inability to give the said amount, her daughter Saidaraja alias Guddan used to be beaten. On 8.5.2006, the accused respondents had left her daughter Smt. Saidaraja alias Guddan in the house after beating her and her husband Saleem Akhtar had fired with a countrymade pistol on Saidaraja alias Guddan, which missed her. The incident was witnessed by the persons of the Mohalla.
(3.) THE trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that although it was claimed by PW1 Smt. Tasleem that the fire made by Saleem Akhtar on her daughter missed her and the same struck the wall, but on the wall no marks of firing were seen, nor any fire marks were mentioned in the site plan. Smt. Saidaraja alias Guddan has also not got herself medically examined. It was also observed by the trial Court that a Section 125 Cr.P.C. case was going on between the parties which had ended in compromise which was arrived on 27.8.2010. In that case, there was another case No. 276 of 2008 under Sections 452, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. which had been filed, in which PW1 and PW2 have stated that the victim Smt. Saidaraja alias Guddan was staying at home at the time of this incident and denied the present incident. The witnesses were confronted with the said document in the present trial. The witness, PW3 -Mohd. Khalid has deposed that he had also not seen the incident. Learned AGA on the other hand argued that the marriage has taken place two years before the incident and there is allegation of demand of dowry.;