SURAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 3/5/1999 passed by lllrd Additional Session Judge, Mainpuri in S.T. No. 367 of 1998 whereunder respondent No. 2 Akhilesh Kumar has been discharged under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 2011.P.C., P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri.

(2.) I have heard Shri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.GA. for respondent No. 1 on this revision and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 to oppose this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 2011.P.C are made out against the respondent No. 2 but the Court below has passed perverse order, because after marriage a constant demand of scooter in the form of Rs. 22,000/- was made by the respondent No. 2, which was not fulfilled and thereafter two months from marriage the victim was murdered. The respondent No. 2 also committed cruelty with the deceased during her life time, as a result of which she informed her parents by writing a letter dated 5/7/1994. The father of respondent No. 2 himself sent a letter to the revisionist on 16/1/1994 in which he categorically made a demand of Rs. 22,000.00 in place of scooter for purchasing a plot. Thus the statements of witnesses as well as documentary evidence categorically made out the offences against respondent No. 2 but the trial Court took contrary view which was not sustainable in the eye of law. Moreover, legal presumption was liable to be drawn against the respondent No. 2, because deceased died within seven years from the date of marriage and it would be presumed that she was murdered unless and until otherwise proved and in this case the deceased was murdered immediately after two months of her marriage.