STATE OF U.P. Vs. RAM SEWAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Government Appeal has been preferred against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Gorakhpur, dated 29.3.2006, whereby the accused respondents Ram Sewak, Tamesar and Jittoo have been acquitted under sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) At the outset, we must comment on a grave malpractice that was being adopted in these cases, as in a large number of cases the Government appeals have deliberately been filed on the last date of limitation. In this case, the Government Appeal was filed on the last date of limitation on 09.10.2006. The result is that this Government Appeal has come up for admission today almost after 7 years and 7 months for the first time. The record has also not been summoned so far. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged by P.W. 1, Mitthoo, father of the deceased Santola alleging that his daughter had been married to the accused-respondent Ram Sewak three years back. She had a six months pregnancy. The accused persons were demanding a motorcycle, which the informant was unable to provide, hence the accused persons had set fire to Santola on 21.5.2004 in their house and had not given any information to the informant till 28.5.2004. The informant was told by Bahadur the brother of the accused-respondent Ram Sewak that the accused-persons had set fire to his daughter on 21.5.2004 and quickly disposed of her body. This F.I.R. was lodged on 28.5.2004 at 7.30 p.m. The Trial Judge has acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that Smt. Mathura, P.W. 2, mother of the deceased and wife of the informant has clearly admitted in her cross examination that her husband P.W. 1 was present at the time of cremation. Still the F.I.R. was lodged after 7 days, of which there was no satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, admittedly as per the F.I.R. Bahadur, brother of Ram Sewak son of Tamesar had given information to the informant Mitthoo regarding the death of Santola. This Bahadur has appeared as D.W. 1 and he has stated that after the incident, he had gone to the maternal home of the deceased and informed the informant, who had come along with him and attended the cremation ceremony, which had taken place the next day. The accused Ram Sewak has also examined himself as D.W. 2 in this case. He deposed that he had taken his wife to Manaali, where he was working as a labourer after the "gauna". As she was ailing, he was getting her medically treated. However, he had sent the original prescription papers to Allahabad in connection with his bail application and hence the original papers were misplaced and he had only filed photo stat copies, which were relied upon by the Trial Court. The Trial Judge has concluded that there was no material for showing that the death of Santola was unnatural, because as the informant had received information that the deceased had died and he was even present at the cremation as is admitted by his wife P.W. 2 Smt. Mathura, if the death was unnatural, the F.I.R. would never have been delayed by 7 days. It has, further, been observed by the Trial Court that there is no satisfactory evidence of dowry demand as a contradictory version has been set up by the witnesses, as at some point, they have stated that a motorcycle was demanded at the time of "gauna" and at other places it was stated that the motor cycle was demanded at the time of marriage. In any case, there is no evidence of dowry demand immediately before the death, which is also an important ingredient under section 304 B I.P.C. It has, further, been observed by the Trial Court that in the 161 Cr. P. C. statement of the informant, there is no allegation of torture or cruelty or even of demand for a motorcycle. The deceased had never made any such disclosure of dowry demand to the complainant. This fact is admitted by the Investigating Officer. P.W. 2 Smt. Mathura in any case does not speak of any cruelty after the marriage even in her evidence in Court.

(3.) In view of these facts and circumstances, we think that no useful purpose would be served in calling for the record after 7 1/2 years for the purpose of admitting this Government appeal or allowing the application seeking leave to file the appeal as in the ordinary course, this Government Appeal is not likely to be heard before 30-40 years.