LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-447

RAM KISHAN DAHIYA Vs. STATE

Decided On January 25, 2012
Ram Kishan Dahiya Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Section 372, Criminal Procedure, by the complainant, challenges an order of acquittal made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in SC No. 242/2010, dated 28-03-2011, whereby the respondents (hereafter called the accused ) were held not guilty for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. This court had issued notice to the respondents; they are represented today by counsel. With consent of counsel for all the parties, the court heard the appeal today.

(2.) The prosecution allegations are that Sweety, the wife of the first respondent (Narender, referred to by name) died an unnatural death in the early hours of the morning of 13-07-2008. Intimation of this was received, by the concerned police station at 07:00 AM. The police went to the spot and found that death was caused by hanging. The statements of the deceased s parents were recorded the next day, by the SDM. They alleged that the accused, including Narender used to treat her cruelly, and sometimes beat her. The deceased s parents deposed as PW-3 and PW-7 during the trial. They alleged that the accused used to make frequent demands for dowry, and often would beat the deceased. It was also stated that the marriage of the couple had taken place on 29-04-2004; the alleged acts of cruelty persisted for a long time. After the first child, a son was born to the deceased, and she stayed with her parents for about one and a half years, till Narender took her back to the matrimonial home. It was alleged that the deceased called her parents on telephone, at around 05:00 AM and told her about repeated beatings. Later, they received news of her death.

(3.) After conclusion of investigations, the accused were charged; they denied guilt, and claimed trial. The prosecution relied on the testimony of 19 witnesses, and several exhibits. After considering these, and the submissions of parties, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution could not establish the respondent accused s guilt.