YASODA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present criminal revision, the revisionist seeks to set aside the order dated 09.06.2016, passed by VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in criminal appeal no. 57 of 2015, State of Uttarakhand vs Anandmani Diwedi and others.

(2.) The genesis of present criminal revision lies in the fact that Anandmani Diwedi, Kalpeshwari Devi, Rajendra Prasad, Rajni, Jagdish Prashad, Urmila, Vimla, Vinod and Yosoda were acquitted by the trial court in criminal case no. 845 of 2013 (renumbered as 2397 / 2006) of the charges levelled against them under Section 498A IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act, giving them benefit of doubt, vide order dated 07.02.2015. The name of Yasoda Devi (present revisionist) was left inadvertently and, therefore, the Asstt. District Government Counsel (criminal) moved an application before the lower appellate court, where the appeal against acquittal was filed, mentioning therein that name of Yasoda Devi has been left inadvertently due to clerical mistake and, therefore, Yasoda Devi be permitted to be impleaded as respondent no. 9 in the State Appeal, which was directed against the acquittal of the accused persons. Such application was objected to by defence counsel before said court, but after considering the facts of the case, learned lower appellate court allowed such an application and permitted amendment to pave way for inclusion of name of the respondent Yasoda Devi as accused-respondent no. 9 in the State Appeal. Hence, present criminal revision.

(3.) Learned court below has herself indicated in the order impugned that there is no provision for incorporating amendment in the criminal cases. But, even then, she chose to permit such amendment.