STATE OF U P Vs. RAM VRIKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard learned AGA and perused the Trial Court judgment and record.

(2.) THIS application for leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.10.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Jaunpur acquitting the accused-respondents under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case, the FIR was registered on the basis of an application filed by the Soolan, father of the deceased on 3.3.2008 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In this case, some allegations of demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/-, Hero Honda Motorcycle, Gold Ring etc. have been levelled against accused-respondents. It is alleged that the accused-respondents, namely, Ramvriksh, Jaybaran, and Firturam came to the house of the informant on 17.6.2007 for taking away Kiran (deceased) with them, they also demanded for dowry. On the next day i.e. on 18.6.2007, the informant got information that his daughter had been murdered. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was recovered in a sack, which was claimed to have been identified by the claimant to be of his daughter but as no case was registered, hence an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was given. The informant Soolan was not examined in Court as he had become mad. Only PW1-Vimla and PW-2 Ramvachan, mother and brother of the deceased, have been examined as witnesses of fact.

(3.) CONSIDERING the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the grounds for acquittal mentioned by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. It is well settled law that even where two views are possible, the view taken by the Trial Court should not normally be interfered with if the view taken is not highly improbable or unreasonable. Hence no interference is called for in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.