Partly allowed

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2019CRLA/109/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined Criminal Appeals by Manoj, Satveer, and Mithilesh challenging their conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. While accepting the husband's conviction for dowry death, the Court held there was insufficient evidence to prove Satveer and Mithilesh's active participation or involvement in the dowry demand prior to death.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence of Satveer and Mithilesh under Section 304-B IPC is set aside; they are acquitted.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. 47

¶2

Reserved on 10.07.2019 Delivered on 19.08.2019

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 109 of 2014 Appellant :- Manoj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, G.P. Dixit, P. Dixit, Pawan Singh Pundir

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- Government Advocate, A.M. Tripathi, Dharmendra Singhal

¶5

Connected with

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 128 of 2014 Appellant :- Satveer And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- Government Advocate, Dharmendra Singhal

¶7

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶8

[Delivered by Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.]

¶9

1. Heard Sri Pawan Singh Pundir, for the accused-appellants and Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ankit Agrawal, for the informant and Sri Preetam Lal Patel, Brief Holder, for State of U.P.

¶10

2. Manoj and Satveer & Mithilesh have filed Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2014, respectively, from their conviction and sentence passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut dated 19.12.2013/ 20.12.2013, in S.T. No. 662 of 2009, State of U.P. Vs. Manoj and another, S.T. No. 504 of 2010, State of U.P. Vs. Mithilesh [arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2009, under Section 498-A, 304-B, 302, 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Sardhana, district Meerut, convicting and sentencing Manoj for imprisonment for life under Section 304-B I.P.C., three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 498-A I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with default stipulation. Convicting and sentencing Satveer and Mithilesh for three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 498-A I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with default stipulation.

¶11

¶12

It may be mentioned that Ramesh Singh (the informant) filed Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. No. 127 of 2014, from aforementioned judgment passed in S.T. No. 662 of 2009, S.T. No. 504 of 2010 and S.T. No. 733 of 2010, State Vs. Km. Mamta and another, acquitting Satveer and Mithilesh under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Km. Mamta and Km. Rekha, daughters of Satveer, from all the charges. This appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 03.02.2016 of this Court, at the admission stage.

¶13

3. On the written complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Ramesh Singh (PW-1), FIR (Ex-Ka-9) of Case Crime No. 147 of 2009, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered on 22.03.2009 at 13:05 hours, at police station Sardhana, district Meerut, by Head Constable Karan Pal Singh (PW-5) against Manoj, Satveer, Mithilesh, Km. Mamta and Km. Rekha. It has been stated in the FIR that Renu @ Bindu, the daughter of the informant, was married to Manoj son of Satveer Singh, resident of village Kapsad, PS Sardhana, district Meerut, 9 months ago. After the marriage, Manoj and his family were continuously demanding additional dowry and assaulting and torturing her for dowry. Four days prior to 22.03.2009, Satveer Singh and Manoj brought her to their house, after vidai, from village Shamli, PS Pilkhuwa. They again demanded dowry from him. A day before 22.3.20019, the informant came to know that the accused attempted to commit murder of his daughter, by burning her, pouring kerosene oil and at present, Renu was admitted in Anand Hospital, Meerut. The informant anyhow reached the hospital in the night and found that Renu was badly burnt and in serious condition. On talking with Renu, she informed that she was forcibly burnt by her husband Manoj, father-in-law Satveer, mother-inlaw Mithilesh and sister-in-laws Rekha and Mamta, by pouring kerosene oil upon her. Due to the burn injuries, Renu died on 22.03.2006 at 8:00 AM, in Anand Hospital Meerut. Prayer has been made for lodging FIR and taking legal action.

¶14

4. After registration of FIR, Station House Officer Sardhana made a request to Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sardhana to conduct Inquest of the dead body of Renu @ Bindu, on which, Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed Naib Tahsildar to conduct inquest of the dead body. Naib Tahsildar Prabha Singh (PW-4) conducted Inquest (Ex-Ka-3) of the dead body of Renu @ Bindu on

¶15

¶16

22.03.2009 between 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM. She prepared Police Form-13, photo lash, challan lash and letters to the authorities (Ex-Ka-4 to Ka-7) for conducting postmortem of the dead body and handed over the dead body to constable Malwa Sharma, for taking it up to mortuary. Dr. M.S. Faujdar (PW3) conducted autopsy of dead body of Renu @ Bindu on 23.03.2009 at 3:00 PM and prepared Postmortem Report (Ex-Ka-2) in which following antemortem injuries were noted:-

¶17

"Superficial to deep burns over whole body except soles, singeing of scalp hairs present.

¶18

In the internal examination, membranes and brain were congested. Spinal Cord not opened. Both left and right lungs were congested. Pus pockets present in both the lungs. 100ml semidigested food material present in the stomach. Gases and fecal matter present in both small and large intestines. Gall bladder congested, pus pockets present. Spleen and Kidneys were congested.

¶19

In the opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was Septicimia, as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries sustained."

¶20

5. Circle Officer of Police Yogendra Pal Ahlawat (PW-6), started investigation in the matter. He copied check FIR and G.D. entry in case diary and recorded statements of the informant Ramesh Singh and scribe of FIR HM Karan Pal Singh. He went to village Kapsad on 22.03.2009 and inspected the spot on the pointing out of the informant and prepared site-plan (Ex-Ka-11). He recorded statements of Sompal, Pramod Kumar, Satpal, and Rajaram. He took into his possession curtain of the door and prepared its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-12). He took into possession plain and burnt earth from the spot, where the deceased was burnt and prepared recovery memo (Ex-Ka-13). He recorded statements of the witnesses of the recovery memo. On 24.03.2009, he obtained list of dowry given at the time of marriage and invitation card of the marriage, from the informant and recorded statements of Smt. Munni Devi, Manoj, Surendra Singh and Mahavir. He copied the postmortem report in case diary. On 28.03.2009, Manoj and Satveer were arrested. He recorded statements of Manoj and Satveer. On 01.04.2009, he copied Inquest in case diary. On 26.04.2009, he submitted charge sheet (Ex-

¶21

¶22

Ka-14) against Manoj and Satveer. Smt. Mithilesh surrendered before the Court on 26.05.2009. On 15.06.2009, he submitted charge sheet (Ex-Ka-15) against Mithilesh. He arrested Km. Rekha and Km. Mamta, recorded their statements and submitted charge sheet (Ex-Ka-16) against them on 01.07.2009. He sent burnt earth and plain earth for chemical examination on 05.07.2009, whose reports dated 03.09.2009 and 15.11.2009, were obtained. These papers were filed in the Court. The Magistrate, after taking cognizance, committed the cases to Session's Court.

¶23

6. On committal, the cases were registered as S.T. No. 662 of 2009 (State Vs. Manoj and another), S.T. No. 504 of 2010 (State Vs. Mithlesh) and S.T. No. 733 of 2010 (State Vs. Km. Mamta and another), which were consolidated and tried together. Additional Session's Judge framed charges against the accused on 07.08.2009 and 18.08.2010. The accused pleaded “not guilty” and claimed for trial. In order to prove the charges, apart from documentary evidence, the prosecution examined Ramesh Singh (PW-1), the informant and father of the deceased, Manoj (PW-2), the brother of the deceased, Dr. M.S. Faujdar (PW-3), to prove postmortem report (Ex-Ka-2), N.T. Prabha Singh (PW-4), to prove Inquest (Ex-Ka-3), Constable Karan Pal Singh (PW-5), to prove check FIR and Superintendent of Police (retd.) Yogendra Pal Ahlawat (PW-6), Investigating Officer.

¶24

7. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, all the incriminatory facts and materials were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC. They denied the facts and materials and claimed for false implication. Manoj stated that while making tea on stove, kerosene oil overflowed and fell on the clothes of the deceased and while setting fire in stove through match stick, her clothes caught fire, due to which she was burnt. He tried to put off the fire in which his hands were also burnt. He admitted the deceased in Anand Hospital and informed the in-laws. Satveer stated that he was not present at the house at the time of incident. After coming to the house, he informed the family members of the deceased. Mithilesh stated that in order to save the deceased she put blanket on her. They examined Dr. Alok Kumar Naik (DW-1), Medical Officer, CHC Machhra, Meerut to prove Injury Report (Ex-Kha-1) dated 28.03.2009 of Manoj, Dr. V.S. Singh (DW-2), who admitted and attended the deceased in Anand Hospital on 21.03.2009 at 7:39

¶25

¶26

PM and Smt. Usha (PW-3), a neighbour of the accused, to prove that the deceased received burn injury, while lighting the kerosene stove.

¶27

8. After hearing the parties, Additional Session's Judge, by impugned judgment held that FIR was not ante-timed. Unnatural death of Renu @ Bindu occurred, due to burn injuries received at the house of the appellants, within seven years of marriage. Demand of dowry by Manoj (husband), Satveer (father-in-law) and Mithilesh (mother-in-law) and torture of the deceased by the appellants in relation to it, was proved. On these findings, he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above and acquitted Km. Rekha and Km. Mamta. Hence, these appeals have been filed.

¶28

9. We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. A three Judges Bench of Apex Court in V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588, has held that in order to attract application of Section 304-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows:

¶29

The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.

¶30

Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.

¶31

She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

¶32

Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

¶33

Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

¶34

On proof of the essential ingredients mentioned above, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. “Soon before” is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstance of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period “soon before the occurrence”. There must be in existence a proximate live link between the facts of cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and the death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in

¶35

¶36

time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.

¶37

In Baijnath v. State of M.P., (2017) 1 SCC 101 , the Court has held that a conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof. The legislative primature of relieving the prosecution of the rigour of the proof of the often practically inaccessible recesses of life within the guarded confines of a matrimonial home and of replenishing the consequential void, by according a presumption against the person charged, cannot be overeased to gloss over and condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts enumerated in the sections involved, lest justice is the casualty.

¶38

10. In the present case, it is proved that Renu @ Bindu was married to Manoj on 29.04.2008. She received serious burn injuries on 21.03.2009 at about 4:00 PM at the house of the appellants. Satveer (the appellant) admitted Renu @ Bindu in Anand Hospital, Meerut on 21.03.2009 at 7:39 PM, where she died on 22.03.2009 at 8:45 AM. FIR of the incident was lodged by Ramesh Singh (PW-1), father of the deceased on 22.03.2009 at 13:05 hours. Thus unnatural death of Renu @ Bindu due to burn injuries, within seven years of the marriage was proved. Demand of dowry and torture of the deceased in relation to it by he appellants, has been proved.

¶39

11. In order to prove demand of dowry and torture of the deceased by the appellants, in relation to it, soon before her death, the prosecution has examined Ramesh (PW-1) and Manoj (PW-2), father and brother of the deceased. Ramesh (PW-1) stated that Renu @ Bindu was his daughter. She was married to the accused Manoj, 17-18 months ago. All the accused used to demand dowry of Rs. 5/- lakh after the marriage and due to non-fulfillment of

¶40

¶41

their demand, they used to torture and assault his daughter, which she used to tell him as and when she used to come to his house. Renu came to his house, 5 to 7 days prior to Holi. Thereafter, Manoj and Satveer took her to their house after vidai , four-five days prior to her death. When they took Renu, they assured that they would neither misbehave with Renu nor demand the dowry. On 21.03.2009 at about 4:00 PM, they pored kerosene oil upon Renu and set fire. He was informed on telephone from the village Kapsad that the accused had burnt his daughter after poring kerosene oil. Then they proceeded for village Kapsad. In the way, they received another telephone call that Renu was taken to Anand Hospital, Meerut then they went to Anand Hospital Meerut. When they reached there, his daughter was lying on the bed in burnt condition and crying. She informed to them that she was sweeping in the house. At that time, the accused called her; Mamta and Rekha caught her hands and Mithilesh pored kerosene oil; Satveer exhorted to burn and he would see its result, on which Manoj set fire through match stick. Due to burn injuries, she died in the hospital at 8:30 AM on 22.03.2009. Thereafter, he got the written complaint scribed through Surendra and lodged the FIR.

¶42

In cross-examination, he stated that the written complaint was scribed at Sardhana, sitting on jugar at about 11:30 AM. They took about 45 minutes in writing the complaint. He signed the writing from a different pen. After giving written complaint to the police station, they went to Anand Hospital. At the time of the marriage of Renu, he and his sons Manoj and Rajesh were earning members in the family. He owned 8-9 bigha (kachcha) land and he was doing agriculture. Rajesh was running jugar from 12-14 years prior to the marriage. Manoj was employed as a driver in a vehicle of a college and earned Rs. 4000/- per month. There were seven members in his family, including the deceased. Rajesh used to give Rs. 70000/- to 80000/- per year to him. He did not have a mobile phone but his sons had mobile phones. He has given a mobile phone to his daughter before the marriage. But she did not talk with him on the mobile nor wrote any letter to him, after the marriage. Narendra resident of village Kapsad was the mediator of the marriage of Renu. 10-12 girls of his village were married at village Kapsad but he could not tell the names of their husband. His sister Murti was also married to Rajendra of village Kapsad, whose house situated at a distance of 200 yard

¶43

¶44

from the house of the accused. Narendra informed him that Satveer owned 14-15 bighas land and Manoj was doing agriculture. Before engagement, Narendra informed that the accused had demand of Rs. 61000/- cash and one motorcycle, which was given by him at the time of marriage. The motorcycle was purchased for Rs. 52000/- from Pilkhuwa but he could not state the name of the motorcycle or the shop from where it was purchased. He has also given one gold chain, one gold ring, one wrist watch and the suit to the bride-groom and one gold tika , one gold pajim , one gold nose ring, gold tops and jhumka , four gold rings and silver pajeb and wrist watch to his daughter; one fridge, television, sofa set, 101 utensils and 51 sets of clothes and one pajeb and one ring for mother-in-law. Total Rs. 4.5 lakh to 5 lakh were expended by him in the marriage. The accused were demanding Rs. 5/- lakh as additional dowry. At the time of the marriage, he voluntarily gave Rs. 1.5/- lakh cash and one motorcycle. He had given one gas stove and one cylinder but they used to cook food on wooden chulha .

¶45

12. Manoj (PW-2) stated that he had one brother Rajesh and one sister Renu @ Bindu. Renu was married to Manoj son of Satveer, resident of Kapsad. In the marriage, they expended about Rs. 4.5/- lakh. They gave all the articles for the use of his sister. In the family of Manoj, Manoj (husband) Satveer (father-in-law), Mithilesh (mother-in-law) Rekha and Mamta (sisterin-laws) were there. They were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were demanding Rs. 5/- lakh. They used to torture and assault his sister Renu, which she used to tell his family members as and when she used to come his house. He asked his father to see the matter. On which, his father went to the house of the accused and pacified them. They assured that in future this would not be repeated. He went to the house of the accused and gave Rs. 90000/- to Satveer. But he was not satisfied and began to say that he wanted Rs. 5/- lakh. While giving Rs. 90000/-, he had told that he could not give more than this amount. Thereafter, they killed Renu on 21.03.2009 by burning. He received information from the village Kapsad on that day about 4:00 PM that the accused had burnt his sister after poring kerosene oil and they had taken her to Anand Hospital. Then they along with about 100 to 125 persons came to Anand Hospital. He remembered the names of Surendra masterji, Dharmesh Tomar, Udaypal. When they reached Anand

¶46

¶47

Hospital then they found that bandage was done to his sister on all over the body. Although she was in serious condition and she was talking at that time. She told that when she was sweeping in the house, her in-laws called her; Mamta and Rekha caught her hands and Mithilesh pored kerosene oil; Satveer exhorted to burn and he would see all the consequences, on which Manoj set fire through match stick. Due to burn injuries, Renu died in the hospital at 8:15 AM on 22.03.2009. Thereafter, his father got the written complaint scribed sitting on jugar out side the police station Sardhana and lodged the FIR. His sister came to his house 5-7 days prior to the incident and informed that the accused were demanding Rs. 5/- lakh and assaulting her. After the festival of Holi, Satveer and Manoj took her to their house after vidai . When they had come for vidai then they had talked with them in this respect. They told that now this would not be repeated. When they reached Anand Hospital, then for little time Satveer remained there and thereafter, he disappeared.

¶48

In cross-examination, he stated that Satveer had stayed in hospital for half an hour. Satveer met them out side of the hospital. He did not have any talk with Satveer nor Satveer told any thing. They straight way went inside the hospital. Satveer also went behind them. After staying about half an hour, he went away and did not return till the death of Renu. Before going to the police station, he remained in the hospital. Subhash and Rakesh brothers of Satveer also met him there. He cannot say for what time, they stayed there. The expenses of the hospital might have been given by the persons, who had admitted Renu. Renu was admitted by her in-laws. He could not say that when the expenses of hospital was given. His father's sister Murti was married to Rajendra resident of village Kapsad. Apart from her, 12-13 girls of his village were married at village Kapsad but he cannot say that any other girl of his village was married in the house Satveer or not. Narendra was the mediator of the marriage of Renu. He informed that the marriage would be settled for Rs. 61000/- and one motorcycle. At that time, the accused did not make any demand. They came to know about the demand of the accused for the first time, when his sister came to their house. When his sister informed about the demand of the accused, then he had not informed about this either to Narendra or his phuphaji . His father had made a complaint to Narendra.

¶49

¶50

Who later on informed after two-four days that he had talked and this would not be repeated. He had a mobile phone, whose number was 9760799881. His sister was also having a mobile phone but he did not remember its number.

¶51

13. From the statements of Ramesh and Manoj (PWs-1 and 2), it is proved that at the time of marriage, the accused did not demand any dowry, directly. Narendra, the mediator had asked them that the marriage would be settled for Rs. 61000/- and one motorcycle, which was given by them along with other articles voluntarily. After the marriage, when Renu @ Bindu went to the house of the informant for the first time, she informed that the accused were demanding Rs. 5/- lakh as an additional dowry. Manoj (PW-2), in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that this money was being demanded in relation of service for the accused Manoj. Statement of Manoj (PW-2) that he had given Rs. 90000/- to Satveer is not corroborated by Ramesh (PW-1). This was a big amount for Manoj, who was working as a driver and was earning Rs. 4000/- per month. As such statements of Manoj (PW-2) in this respect is not liable to be believed. Murti Devi, father's sister of the deceased was married in neighbourhood of the accused. Ramesh and Manoj (PWs-1 and 2) have never made any complaint to Smt. Murti Devi or her family members in respect of the demand of dowry and torture of the deceased in relation to it. Although Manoj (PW-2) has stated that he had sent his father for talking with the accused and Narendra (the mediator) in respect of the demand of dowry and torture of the deceased in relation to it then he had come to the village of the accused and had talked through Narendra but this statement was not corroborated by Ramesh (PW-1). In such circumstances, demand of dowry by Satveer and Mithilesh was not proved. Demand was made by Manoj alone through the deceased.

¶52

14. Now it has to be examined as to whether all the appellants have participated in burning the deceased. There is no direct evidence in this respect. Statements of Ramesh and Manoj (PWs-1 and 2) are allegedly based upon the information received from the deceased, when they reached Anand Hospital. Dr. V.S. Singh (DW-2) stated that Smt. Renu @ Bindu was admitted in Anand Hospital on 21.03.2009 at 7:39 PM, in 70%, second and third degree burnt condition. Her larynx was also burnt and she was not in a

¶53

¶54

position to speak, due to which, her dying declaration could not be recorded. Dr. M.S. Faujdar (PW-3) has also confirmed this fact that throat of the deceased was also burnt and the deceased was having 90% burn injuries. According to Ramesh and Manoj (PWs-1 and 2) they had reached Anand Hospital at 9:00 PM on 21.03.2009, while Renu died on 22.03.2009 at 8:45 AM. During this period, the informant or his family member did not give any information to the police or other authority that Renu was burnt by the accused, although according to Manoj (PW-2) more than 100 persons of his village had to gone to Anand Hospital at that time. As such their statements the deceased had informed them that the accused had burnt her was not liable to be believed.

¶55

15 . It is admitted that after incident of her burning, Satveer took the deceased and got her admitted in Anand Hospital Meerut. In case, Satveer and Mithilesh were involved in burning the deceased, then he might not have made any effort to provide medical help to the deceased. This circumstance also shows bonafide of Satveer.

¶56

16. So far as the accused Manoj is concerned, he took plea that while preparing tea from stove, kerosene oil came out and fell on the clothes of the deceased and while setting fire through match stick, her clothes caught fire. He tried to put off the fire, due to which, he had also received burn injuries. In his Injury Report (Ex-Kha-1), one burn injury on his left palm of 7 cm x 3 cm was shown. He was examined on 28.03.2009. Dr. Alok Kumar Naik (DW-1) has stated that this injury was a simple injury. There is nothing to prove that he had made any effort to take the deceased to the hospital. In these circumstances, Trial Court has not accepted his defence. Finding of the Trial Court in this respect does not suffer from any illegality.

¶57

17. As a young girl of 22 years was done to death, causing grievous burn injuries, as such Manoj was rightly awarded imprisonment for life by the Trial Court under Section 304-B IPC. 18. In view of aforesaid discussions, Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2014 has no merit and is dismissed . Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2014 succeeds and is allowed. Conviction and sentence of Satveer and Mithilesh, passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut dated 19.12.2013/ 20.12.2013, in S.T. No. 662 of 2009 (State of U.P. Vs. Manoj and another),

¶58

¶59

S.T. No. 504 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Mithilesh) [arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2009, under Section 498-A, 304-B, 302, 306 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Sardhana, district Meerut, is set aside. Satveer and Mithilesh are acquitted from the charges.

¶60

19. Office is directed to remit the original record to the court below and send a copy of the judgment for its compliance.

¶61

Order date: 19.8.2019

¶62

Jaideep/-

¶63

[Umesh Kumar,J.] [ Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.]

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Irshad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bijender Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Kamre Alam @ Kamaryab Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Kachhi and Another Vs State of U.P.