STATE Vs. JAGDISH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A.Nos.4033/2014 (Delay in filing) and 4034/2014 (delay in refiling)

(2.) For the reasons stated in the applications the delay in filing and refiling the leave to appeal petition is condoned.

(3.) During the course of trial though Anil Kumar PW-5 the complainant supported the case of the prosecution with some variations, however his father PW-4 Arjun Singh did not support the prosecution case and only stated that one day prior to Raksha Bandhan Jagdish demanded Rs. 50,000/-. This witness was cross-examined by the learned APP. In the crossexamination this witness admitted that after the marriage of Gita they had no complaints with the parents-in-law of Gita, Kuldeep and Ranjit. He also admitted that father of Jagdish got purchased a 90 sq.yards plot for Jagdish in Delhi where Jagdish and Gita used to reside. He further stated that initially the couple i.e. Gita and her husband Jagdish lived happily in Delhi but later on at the time of second issue tension developed between them. Thus the version of Anil PW-5 is not supported by his father PW-4 Arjun Singh.