Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 629 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Vishal Shukla

2014-02-19

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, IMTIYAZ MURTAZA

body2014
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.: - This is an application for leave to appeal against judgement and order dated 11.7.2013 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Hardoi acquitting the respondents from charges under Sections 498-A IPC, 304-B IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, in Sessions Trial No. 493 of 2011. 2. According to the prosecution case, daughter of the informant Ekta alias Minu was married to the respondent Vishal Shukla according to the rites. He had given dowry according to his capability. After marriage, it is alleged, she was being pressurized for dowry. On 10.1.2011, Vinod Kumar Shukla, uncle of the respondent, informed the complainant that his daughter had died. Injury was found on the neck of the deceased. After registration of the case, enquiry officer submitted charge sheet against the respondent and the case was committed to the court of sessions. 3. Prosecution in support of its case, examined PW-1Vinod Kumar Awasthi, the informant, PW-2 Pradeep Kumar, PW-3 Smt. Maya Awasthi, PW-4 Dr. Shiv Kishore Gupta, PW-5 S.O. Raghvendra Kumar Misra, PW-6 Constable Mewa Lal Bharti, PW-7 I.O. Mahmood Ahmad Siddiq and PW-8 Addl. Tehsildar Ram Autar Verma. 4. The case of the defence was of denial. According to defence, it was a case of natural death. Defence examined DW-1 Ram Nath, DW-2 Dr. Mohd. Khalid and DW-3 Anand Kumar Singh. 5. The Sessions Judge considered the entire evidence on record and came to a conclusion that the deceased did not die because of any ante mortem injuries and that the prosecution has not been able to establish the demand of dowry or that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty. 6. Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence, also held that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have not been proved by the prosecution. 7. We have heard learned AGA for the appellant and perused the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgement and order. 8. We are of the view that the Sessions Judge committed no error in acquitting the respondent and the findings recorded by him do not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. 10. Since application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also stands dismissed.