Dismissed

Dharam Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019CRLR/2542/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed criminal revision challenging dismissal of application for framing alternative charge of murder under IPC 302 in dowry death case.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dharam Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2542 of 2017

¶3

Revisionist :- Dharam Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Janam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ram Janam Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present criminal revision is directed against the impugned order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Fatehpur in S.T. No.255 of 2015 (State Vs. Virendra and others) whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application No.20-B of informant/revisionist for framing of alternative charge, under section 302 I.P.C., against the accused persons.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is bad in law and without appreciation of evidence, victim died due to burn, there was sufficient evidence against the accused persons to frame the charge against them, under section 302 IPC but trial Court rejected the same by the impugned order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the informant/ revisionist could not show any prima facie evidence of murder against accused persons. On repeated quarry, learned counsel for revisionist could not show any illegality or ground so as to enable the Court to interfere in the impugned order.

¶9

Learned A.G.A supporting the impugned order submitted that the Trial Court did not make any error for rejecting the application. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence. No interference is required in the impugned order.

¶10

It appears that the applicant revisionist Dhram Pal (informant of the case) moved an application before the trial Court that statements of PW-1 Dhram Pal and PW-2 Maan Singh have been recorded in the Court; they stated in their examination-inchief that accused persons poured kerosene oil on victim Sunita and set her fire on 29.04.2005 due to non fulfilment of their demand of dowry. It has further been stated in the application that before her death, victim Sunita narrated to him about the

¶11

dowry and ill treatment by accused persons and prayer was made that on the basis of evidence, an alternative charge of section 302 IPC was ordered to be framed against the accused persons.

¶12

Admittedly, death of victim occurred beyond seven years of marriage due to burn. PW-1 and PW-2 are not eye witnesses of the incident. No illegality or irregularity or any jurisdictional error appear in the impugned order.

¶13

Revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The criminal revision is hereby dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 SFH

Dharam Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dharam Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sandhya Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Up and 4 Others

Nitendra Kumar Dwivedi and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nisha Vs State of U.P. and Another