SWEETY Vs. PRAKASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision Petition 521/2005 is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th March, 2005, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 31/2004 arising out of F.I.R. No. 572/1997, Police Station Sultanperi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of all charges.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows: Smt. Sweety was married to Sh. Manjeet Singh on 24.11.93. After marriage, parties resided at 1948-B/151, Tri Nagar, Delhi. Family comprised the couple, the parents of the husband, two younger brothers of the husband and two small daughters of the couple. The relations between the complainant Sweety and her in-laws were bitter. On 3.6.97, Smt. Sweety, her husband Manjeet Singh along with their younger daughter moved to the house bearing No. D-15. Budh Vihar, Delhi. On 4.6.97 at about 6 p.m. Sweety was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi by her husband with 30% burns on her body. MLC was prepared. The doctor referred her to LNJP hospital for further management. She was, however, declared 'fit for statement' on 6.6.97 and the SDM recorded her statement upon which a case under Sections 498A/ 307/34, IPC was registered. Version of the prosecution is that Sweety used to be harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and dowry demands were made from time-to-time by her husband and parents-in-law. A charge under Section 498A, IPC was framed against the husband Manjeet Singh, Prakash Kaur, the mother-in-law and Jogender Singh, the father-in-law. Next contention of the prosecution is that on 4,6.97 at about 4/5 p.m. husband Manjeet Singh attempted to murder his wife Sweety by pouring kerosene oil and burning her. Manjeet Singh was accordingly charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC. Manjeet Singh, Prakash Kaur and Jogender Singh were also charged under Section 406, IPC r/w Section 34, IPC for misappropriating the 'Istridhan' comprising the dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage."

(3.) It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the statement of PW-1, Smt. Sweety is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and that the trial Court has gone wrong in not relying upon her When she herself is the victim of the cruelty. He has taken me through the judgment of the case as also the statements of the witnesses. From a perusal therefrom it appears that the story put forth by 'he prosecution as narrated by PW-1, Smt. Sweety has found no corroboration. On the other hand, there appears to be substance in the case put up by the defence.