UMESH SHARMA Vs. RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the complainant and having perused the impugned decision as also having perused the certified copies of the testimonies of the various witnesses, we find no case being made out to grant leave to appeal.

(2.) The husband and the parents-in-law of deceased Sarika were charged of the offence punishable under Section 498A/304-B IPC.

(3.) Acquitting the accused the learned trial Judge has held that the suicide note Ex.P-3 of the deceased clearly recorded that nobody was responsible for her action. It has been further noted by the learned trial Judge that in their statement Ex.PW-3/A and PW-3/B recorded before the learned SDM, the parents of deceased Sarika, did not utter a word that their daughter was being harassed on account of any dowry demand. Not only that. In their statements the parents of Sarika clearly told the learned SDM that during the subsistence of her marriage, Sarika never complained to them of any dowry harassment. The third piece of evidence noted by the learned trial Judge is that the husband of Sarika had named Sarika as the nominee in every asset of his. Learned trial Judge has further noted that appearing as witnesses of the prosecution in the Court, for the first time, the parents of Sarika made allegation of dowry being demanded at the time of marriage. One dowry article demanded as per the parents of Sarika was a motor-cycle by the husband of Sarika. Learned trial Judge has noted that Sarika's husband already possessed a motor-cycle, and thus formed an opinion that said allegation was exaggeration.