Dismissed

Smt. Phoolmati and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2022/195/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court dismissed the criminal revision filing against the order summoning the revisionists (wife and sister-in-law of deceased) to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a dowry death case. The court held that prosecution witness statements are sufficient to establish a prima-facie case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision No. - 195 of 2022 was dismissed upholding the impugned order.

Smt. Phoolmati and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 195 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Smt. Phoolmati And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Neeraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA.

¶6

Present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2019, under Sections 498 A, 304 B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sohramau, District Unnao whereby learned trial court has allowed the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the revisionists to face the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that name of the revisionists were mentioned in the FIR but during the investigation when the statements of the informant and his son were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. they have not made any allegation against the revisionists whereas in the statements the allegation of dowry demand was against the husband of the deceased and for the present revisionists there is a specific statement of separate living but when the statements of both were recorded before the Magistrate as PW1/Complainant/father of deceased & PW-2/elder sister of deceased in the Case Crime No. 144 of 2019, they have specifically stated the names of the present revisionists stating that they were demanding dowry and harassing the deceased. It

¶8

is further submitted that the learned trial court while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has completely ignored the statements of the informant and his son recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that statements of residents of the village was recorded wherein they have stated that the deceased was pressing her husband to live separately and after four years of marriage, both of them had started living separately in the house of village whereas the revisionists had started living separately in the house situated at outside the village.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the statements recorded before the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has no relevance after the statements before the trial court as prosecution witnesses wherein complaint/PW-1 and his daughter/PW-2 have specifically stated that the the revisionists also demanded the dowry and the same corroborates with the version in the FIR and after being prima-facie satisfied, the trial court while exercising its power conferred under Section 319 Cr.PC. allowed the application for summoning the revisionists.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available before this court, it is found that the statements recorded before the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are of not much relevance after the statements recorded as prosecution witnesses during the trial before the Court and after considering the relevant material, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed.

¶11

Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to proceed against other persons, who appear to be guilty of offence though not accused before the Court. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2014 3 SCC 92 has held that

¶12

the word "appear" means" clear to the comprehension", or a phrase near to, if not synonymous with "proved", it imparts a lesser degree of probability than proof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2019 6 SCC 368 has held that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are said to be evidence for the purposes of adjudicating the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2020 14 SCC 472 has held that only prima-facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on anvil of cross examination.

¶13

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parities as well as the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, no good ground has been made out for interference and hence, the present criminal revision is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 11.3.2022 Ashish

¶15

Digitally signed by ASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.03.14 12:06:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Phoolmati and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Phoolmati and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Kashi Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Radheshyam Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home and Anr.

Sangram Singh @ Sangram Verma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Kant Singh and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Achhey Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Zeba and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.