Court No. - 11
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4476 of 2007 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sirpat And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA on the leave application.
This leave application is moved for grant of leave to file the appeal against the judgement and order dated 27.02.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 693 of 2005 (State Vs. Sirpat & others), under Section 498-A 306 IPC, 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act by Additional Sessions Judge,Fast Tract Court, Court No. 4, Varanasi.
The prosecution case is that Ram Chander son of Mangru resident of village Rasoolpur, police station Adalhat, Mirzapur gave a written report on 13.05.2005 at about 20:50 hours at Police Station Lohata, Varanasi to the effect that marriage of his sister Shakuntala was solemnized with Sirpat about eight years ago. After the marriage, in-laws of Shakuntala started demanding Rs. 25,000/- as additional dowry and due to non- fulfillment of the same started tourturing his sister, Shakuntala. On 07.07.2005 father-in-law of Shakuntala came to the residence of complainant and informed him that Shakuntala has been burnt and is admitted in Kabirchaura Hospital. On the said information, the complainant, Shiv Shankar, Masoom Raza and Siyaram rushed to the hospital at about 09:00 hours but til then the sister of the complainant had died. The complainant came to know that due to continuous torture his sister Shakuntala has burnt herself.
Perusal of the evidence shows that respondent No. 1, Sirpat who is the husband of Shakuntala, tried his best to save her wife Shakuntala and in that effort he himself got 60 per cent burnt. She was admitted in the hospital by the husband and the parents of Shakuntala were also informed by the father of Sirpat about this incident. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized eight years back and she survive three children. There is no evidence on record that before this incident any panchayat in regard to demand of dowry was held nor any complaint was made by the complaint to any authority.
There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement and it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court below is not a possible or plausible view. No indulgence is required. Hence the application for leave is rejected.
Consequently, the appeal is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Sweety kanojia/Kamarjahan