Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7818 of 2017 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sunil Alias Sonu And Another Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Counsel for Respondent :- Kuldeep Johri
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard Sri I.P. Srivastva, Additional Government Advocate-I, for the appellant.
The appeal of acquittal has been filed from the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Pilibhit dated 15.9.2017 passed in S.T. No.164 of 2014(State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sunil alias Sonu and another), arising out of Case Crime No.683 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 304B, 506, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Pilibhit, district Pilibhit.
According to the F.I.R. Meenakshi alias Nanhi the deceased was married to Sunil alias Sonu on 11.12.2012 according to Hindu rites. At the time of marriage dowry was given according to the capacity of the parents of the deceased. When the deceased came back to her parents' house then she informed that her-in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and they were demanding Rs.50,000/- cash. Thereafter the informant pacified her son-in-law and then he remained silent for some time but he again began to torture the deceased for dowry. On 8.9.2013 Sunil alias Sonu and his mother Smt. Nanhi alias Kaushalya went to the house of the informant and assured the informant that they would not create any trouble and after being satisfied vidai of the deceased was done. On 11.9.2013 the informant received information that her daughter was ill and her son-in-law had gone somewhere else. Then she along with her daughter Durga started for the house of the accused and reached there at 5-00 P.M. They found that her daughter Meenakshi was dead and the family members were preparing for cremation. The F.I.R. was lodged at the police station at 11.9.2013 at 19- 50 hours.
In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Smt. Pramodini Devi (PW-1)mother of the deceased, Smt. Durga (PW-2) elder sister of the deceased, Manoj Kumar alias Sonu (PW-3) elder brother of the deceased, Dr. Kamal Kumar (PW-4), Head Constable Surajpal Singh (PW-5), Naib Tehsildar Rajeev Nigam (PW-6), Deputy Superintendent of Police Dinesh Kumar Sharma (PW-7) and Deputy Superintendent of Police Subeg Singh Siddhu (PW-8.
Dr. Kamal Kumar (PW-4) conducted post mortem of the deceased. According to the post mortem report there was no external injury on the body of the deceased and cause of death could not be ascertained. Therefore, viscera was preserved and sent for chemical examination. In chemical examination report Aluminum Phosphide poison was found. Dr. Kamal Kumar was cross examined as to whether there was any symptom on the body of the deceased relating to giving of Aluminum Phosphide poison forcibly but he had denied and stated that there was no sign on the body of the deceased to prove the case that force was applied. The deceased had come to the house of the accused on 8.9.2013 and the incident had taken place on 11.9.2013. In the absence of any external injury on the body of the deceased the torture of deceased in relation to demand of dowry was neither proved nor there was any evidence that she was forcibly given poison.
So far as the demand of dowry is concerned, according to the witnesses themselves there was no direct demand of dowry to them. Only the deceased had informed that Rs.50,000/- cash was demanded in dowry. The statements of witnesses in this respect were not consistent inasmuch as in the F.I.R. only demand of Rs.50,000/- was made while the witnesses had stated that Rs.50,000/- and one sofa set was demanded. The witnesses had also admitted that when the accused came to the house of the informant on 8.9.2013 then they were pacified and assured that they would not demand dowry. Thus, there is no strong evidence in respect of demand of dowry also. In the absence of torture of the deceased in relation to demand of dowry, the order of acquittal has been passed by the court below.
The order of acquittal does not suffer from any illegality. The application for leave to appeal is rejected. The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 mt