why ONLY dismissal and WHY NOT PUNISH such false complainants ??
eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System (Judgment/Order in Text Format)
This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 178 of 2013
Petitioner :- Mayuri Singh @ Dolly
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Others
Petitioner Counsel :- P.K. Sinha
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 29.3.2013 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Aligarh acquitting four accused-respondents under section 498A, 323/34, 307/34, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.
The FIR was lodged by Mayoori alias Doli the complainant on 13.5.2010 at 12.15 p.m. at police station Sasani Gate, Aligarh alleging that she was married with accused-respondent Mahesh Chand alias Mannu on 10.12.2006.
Rs. 6 lacs had been spent in the marriage but the accused-respondents were demanding dowry.
On 13.5.2010 at 5.30 a.m. all the accused-respondents had beaten the complainant and in conspiracy with her father-in-law the accused-respondents are said to have taken the complainant to her home and to have tried to strangulate her with a rope on the way. Then on undertaking that she would fulfill their demands they pushed her out of the car.
The trial judge has acquitted the accused-respondents on the grounds that the complainant was habitual in making such complaints.
She has earlier complained that in the month of February, 2010 the accused-respondents had tried to set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her but no report of that incident was lodged and no witness had even been named to corroborate that incident. There was a blunt object injury but again it has not been corroborated that it had been caused in the present incident.
The doctor had observed that the said injuries, of which one was on the neck and the other on the right shoulder, were simple in nature and were not likely to cause her death.
Also they could have been self inflicted.
No independent witness was produced.
P.W. 4 Ashok Kumar has given a different version that the complainant was asked to leave the car and then beaten but this version was contrary to the version
set up by the complainant that she was attempted to be strangulated with a rope and then pushed out from the car.
There is no injury on the body of her daughter who was said to be in her arms.
So far as the other witnesses P.W. 2 Radha Charan father of the complainant and P.W. 3 Sunil Kumar Mama of the complainant are concerned, they are relation witnesses.
They are said to be hearsay witnesses.
So far as the allegation of dowry demand is concerned the trial court has recorded a finding that no dowry demand was made and the said claim also appears to be exaggerated.
On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant argued that the evidence of the complainant was supported by
P.W. 4 Ashok Kumar.
No government appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment.
On an overall consideration of the matter we do not find any perversity or illegality in the trial court's judgment. Therefore, no ground for interference with the judgment is made out. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected and the appeal against acquittal is also dismissed summarily.
Order Date :- 7.5.2013
Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer