Dismissed

Shashi Kant Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2022CRLR/295/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Section 498-A IPC and acquittal under Section 304-B IPC regarding dowry death. Court held prosecution failed to prove Section 304-B due to victim's absence from in-laws' home. Dismissed revision as 20 years lapsed and no error found.

What did the court decide?

Revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. dismissed; impugned judgment upholding conviction under Section 498-A IPC remains.

Shashi Kant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 295 of 2005

¶3

Revisionist :- Shashi Kant Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- S.H. Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision even in revised call though the case is listed peremptorily today. However, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA is present.

¶6

The present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgement and order dated 9.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-V, Lucknow in Session Trial No.871 of 2003, whereby the learned trial court had acquitted opposite party nos.2 to 6 of the offence under Section 304-B read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, however, convicted them under Section 498-A IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.

¶7

The deceased died on 19.4.2002 at the place of her parents. During this period, no one from the family of in-laws visited her. The trial court, therefore, recorded a finding that there was no demand of dowry or subjecting the deceased to cruelty soon before her death inasmuch as she remained at the place of her parents from 4.10.2001 to 19.4.2002 i.e. the date of her death.

¶8

This Court is of the view that the view taken by the trial court is a plausible one and it has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction in appreciating the evidence to come to the conclusion that offence under Section 304-B IPC would not be made out in the facts and circumstances of the case against the

¶9

accused-respondents. The prosecution has failed to bring on record cogent and credible evidence to establish the guilt of the accused-respondents for offence under Section 304-B IPC.

¶10

The incident took place on 19.4.2002. 20 years have gone bye since the date of incident. At this distant point of time, a direction for re-trial would not be appropriate. This Court finds that there is no error of law or jurisdiction, which has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence, which warrants this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 9.2.2005 passed by the trial court.

¶11

Thus, the present revision fails, which is hereby dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 17.8.2022

¶13

Rao/-

¶14

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.08.17 18:24:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shashi Kant Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Kant Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Geeta Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Sandeep Kumar and Anothers Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Anothers

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dukhraja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Raj Kishore Vs the State of U.P.