LAWS(UTN)-2003-11-27

ASHA PANT AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Decided On November 17, 2003
Asha Pant and another Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Code') has been preferred against the order dated 3-8-2002, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh allowed the application of the prosecution under section 319 of the `Code' in Sessions Trial No. 16/2002 under section 306 LPC. and decided to proceed against the two other persons as accused (who are the two revisionists) for the offences which they appear to have committed.

(2.) BRIEF facts, relevant for the deci­sion, are that Smt. Grishma Pant de­ceased was married to charge sheeted accused Nalin Pant on 20.3.2000. She died on 11.5.2002 under circumstances other than natural. Her brother inform­ant Gaurav Pandey posted in Calcutta received information and came to Pithoragarh. He lodged the F.I.R. on 14.5.2002 alleging that six months af­ter the marriage the husband Nalin Pant, mother-in-law Smt. Asha Pant and brother-in-law Dipin Pant of the de­ceased have started harassment of the deceased and ill-treated her for and in connection with dowry demand; that the deceased made complaint about all this to him and his mother from time to time; that some money and ornaments were given thereafter but they were not satisfied and continued to subject the deceased with physical and mental cru­elty and that they have caused her death by administering her poisonous sub­stance.

(3.) AFTER framing of charge under section 306 I.PC. against the husband the evidence of the informant Gaurav Pandey (P W. 1) was recorded on 29.7.2002. Before the cross examina­tion of the witness could commence prosecution moved an application under section 319 of the `Code' on that very day i.e. 29.7.2002 with a prayer that in view of the statement of the said witness the court may proceed against the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased against whom the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment for and in connection with the demand of dowry have also been made. The learned Ses­sions Judge considered the evidence of PW.1 recorded in the case in the light of the allegations made in the FIR and on being satisfied that the requirement of section 319 of the `Code' stand sat­isfied decided to proceed against these two persons, the revisionists in the case, under sections 304-B/498-A I.PC. and 3/4, of the Dowry Prohibition Act.