- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 4 February 2016
- Bench
- G.S.Sistani, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
- Case no.
- CRL.L.P. 535/2015
Judgment
SEHGAL, J G. S. SISTANI,J FEBRUARY4,2015 gr Poge 17 of 17
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION No. 535/2015 % Date of decision : 4"^ February, 2016 STATE Appellant Through : Ms. Anita Abraham, AFP for the State with Inspector S. P. Singh, Police Station- Karawal Nagar, versus MANOJ & ORS. Respondents Through : Mr. Dinesh Garg, Advocate along with respondent No. 1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL. J. tORAI J 1. The present Criminal Leave Petition has been filed under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State seeking leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Noith-East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 24/13. 2. The case as set up by the prosecution is that on 30.03.2013 DD No. 34/A was registered at Police Station - Karawal Nagar and was assigned to AS I Ashok Kumar who reached the spot and found a lady hanging from the ceiling fan. Concerned Station House Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate were informed about the incident. Crime Team reached at the spot. On the direction of Sub Divisional en. LP. 535/2015 Magistrate dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. Father of the deceased was also informed. On 31.03.2013, Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased wherein they held the accused persons responsible for the death of the deceased for non fulfillment of the demand of dowry. On 01.04.2013 postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted and doctor opined that the cause of death was due to "Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging." 3. After the investigation that followed the complaint, police filed a charge sheet under Section 498A/304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the charges framed against them. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied the accusations levelled against them. One witness was examined in defence. The learned Trial Court eventually came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly acquitted the accused persons. 5. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused persons, the present leave petition has been preferred by the State. 6. Ms. Anita Abraham, learned counsel for the State opened her arguments by contending that the impugned judgment is contrary to the material available on record and the same is based on en. LP. 535/2015 Page2o/17 presumptions, conjectures and surmises and is in gross ignorance of settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases and is liable to be set aside. She further submits that since the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased had been subjected to not only demand of dowry but also cruelty soon before her death, however, the learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons for the offences for which they have been charged. Reliance has been placed upon Pradip Singh & Anr. Vs. Stale of Jharkhand reported wiAIR 2007SC 2154. Learned counsel further contends that it is a fit case where the respondents are liable to be convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. She further contends that the Trial Court committed a grave error in not considering the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the demand of dowry made by the respondents and commission of cruelty and torture against the deceased on account of non-flilfilment of the dowry demand. She further contends that the testimonies of the witnesses are reliable and truthful and that there was no apparent reason for false implication of the accused persons. 7. Mr. Dinesh Garg, learned Counsel for the respondents with all force countered the argum
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.