Dismissed

Manik Lal Gupta v. Laxman Sallu and2 Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022CRLR/13/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court disposed of a case where the revisionist failed to appear. Relying on the Assistant General Counsel's submissions, the High Court affirmed the trial court's acquittal of the respondents, noting that the evidence supported a natural death rather than foul play related to dowry demands.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision against the order of acquittal is dismissed.

Manik Lal Gupta Vs Laxman Sallu and2 Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 13 of 2008

¶3

Revisionist :- Manik Lal Gupta Opposite Party :- Laxman Sallu And2 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sampurnanad,Manoj Kumar Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Case called out. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the revisionist.

¶6

As the revision is pending since 2008 and order sheet reveals that the case is not being pursued by the revisionist, therefore, same is being decided with the assistance of Mr. Rajiv Verma, learned AGA.

¶7

The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-3, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No.178 of 2006, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-3, Sultanpur has acquitted the respondents under Sections 302, 498-A, 201 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

¶8

As per the prosecution case, the written complaint was given by Manik Lal Gupta, informant on 06.8.2005 with the averment that he is residing in Ahmedabad in relation to employment since 27-28 years. He was having three children, in which two daughters and one son, namely, Madhuri, Mamta and Vinay Kumar. Marriage of Madhuri was solemnized with Laxman @ Kallu, respondent no.1 on 25.02.2001 and as per capacity, he had given gifts and dowry. After one year from the date of marriage, respondents started victimizing his daughter and also demanded cash. When she raised objections, she was beaten by the respondents as she also tries to satisfy the respondents and

¶9

later on his daughter was killed on 04.08.2005. Information was given by the respondent no.2 to elder brother of the informant, namely, Gaya Prasad that daughter of the informant met an accident and thereafter wife of the informant and other persons reached the house of the respondents and found that his daughter was lying dead. Thereafter ritual of the body of the deceased was performed.

¶10

On the basis of FIR, investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and and recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, and prepared the site plan and thereafter he came to conclusion that offence under Section 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is made out and charge sheet was submitted after taking cognizance. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The prosecution relied on four witnesses and certain documents and evidences. After completion of the prosecution evidences, statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the respondents also placed four defence witnesses, namely, Arun Kumar Singh-D.W.-1, Dujai Ram-D.W.-2, Dr. Suhail Ahmad Khan - D.W.-3 and Ashok Kumar Yadav-D.W.4 and thereafter, judgment in question was passed by learned Trial Court acquitting the respondents.

¶11

Shri Rajiv Verma, learned AGA submitted that learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences and P.W.-1 informant has categorically admitted in his deposition that his brother Gaya Prasad informed about the death of the deceased to his wife and she stated that she received information at 5-6 AM and P.W.2- Smt. Malti, mother of the deceased also deposed that information was given to her about the death of the deceased and both the aforesaid witnesses have admitted that thereafter Malti along with other women went by the same

¶12

Jeep to the house of respondents and they stayed at their house about two hours and thereafter Shri Ram and other went with Body for funeral and after funeral they came back. Therefore, learned trial court has rightly observed that no alleged offence is not made out in deposition of the prosecution witnesses. It is also found that the deceased was suffering from some ailment, hence she died and this was a natural death and this was not a death for dowry as in the deposition of the witnesses admitted that only the case of the deceased was ill and therefore, this fact that she burnt 90 percent, creates doubt, learned trial court has rightly discussed the evidences relied by the prosecution and respondents.

¶13

Considering the submission of Mr. Rajiv Verma, learned AGA and going through the contents of record, learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution and found that at the time of funeral the family members of the deceased were present and therefore, there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 and the criminal revision is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 11.11.2022 KR

¶15

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.11.16 14:06:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manik Lal Gupta v. Laxman Sallu and2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Lal Gupta v. Laxman Sallu and2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Nihor Yadav and Anr. Vs Manoj Kumar Singh Superintending Engineer P.W.D. Pratapgarh

Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs Sri Vinod Kumar Singh D.I.O.S.Ambedkar Nagar

Ram Khelawan Vs Keshav Prasad Tehsildar Mihipurwa Motipur Bahraich and Others

Ravi Kumar Vs Gaya Prasad Mishra and Anr.

Ram Gopal Verma Vs Chandna Ram Iqbal Yadav Distt Basic Edu Officer Bareilly Anr.

Lalji Patel Vs Sagun Gautam SP Dist. Pratapgarh and Anr.