Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1 (JK)

State v. Ajay Singh Jasrotia

2010-01-01

SUNIL HALI

body2010
1. One Aparna alias Niku died under suspicious circumstances, which resulted in initiation of inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the enquiry, an FIR No.135 /97 came to be filed on 18th of Sept97 with police station Satwari. The respondents were tried under Section 306, 498-A RPC, by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The learned trial court after appreciating the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that it has failed to prove the allegation against the accused and accordingly acquitted them of the charges under Section 306, 498-A RPC, vide its order dt. 17th of Sept08. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant State. 2. The order impugned is being assailed on the ground that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. It is stated that the prosecution without any shadow of doubt had proved the case that it was on account of cruelty and other compelling circumstances, which led the deceased to commit suicide but the said aspect was not taken note of by the court below. 3. The story as put forth by the prosecution is that the deceased was married to respondent No.1 and the said marriage was solemnized on 21st of Jan96, but the said respondent was having extra marital relationship with one Sabita about which the deceased was kept in dark by her in-laws. It was further pleaded that the respondents oftenly used to taunt and harass the deceased as she had not brought anything in the dowry. The deceased was not being allowed to even talk to her parents on telephone and was being refused to meet her relations. 4. It was stated that on the day of occurrence, the respondent No.1 left the house at about 11 a.m., and asked his servant not to disturb the victim. It was later on found that the deceased is in an unconscious position. She was taken to the hospital by the respondents after making telephone call to her parents.It was further contended that the accused-respondent No.1 had procured Baygon and Harpic powder a day prior to the death of the deceased and kept in the room of the deceased. 5. The learned trial court examined as many as 22 witnesses and ultimately came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to make out any case against the respondents. 6. 5. The learned trial court examined as many as 22 witnesses and ultimately came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to make out any case against the respondents. 6. The conclusion of the trial court that no offence is made out under Section 498-A RPC, is based upon the fact that the prosecution witnesses have themselves admitted that marriage of the deceased with respondent No.1 was performed without receipt of any dowry. So far as demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the respondents is concerned, it has been observed by the court below that nothing of the sort has come in the investigation that there was any demand to that effect either by the respondent No.1 or his parents or the deceased sought any money from her parents for paying the same to the respondents. It was under these circumstances held that the said allegation is also not proved against the respondents. 7. After carefully considering the evidence recorded by the trial court and perusing the judgment impugned, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any legal error in appreciating the evidence which has come on record. 8. I, accordingly find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the court below. This appeal, as such fails, and is dismissed.