MAYA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 9230/2017 has been filed for condonation of delay of 483 days in filing the Acquittal Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2016, whereby Respondents herein though have been convicted under section 498(A)/34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court under section 313/34 and 323/504 IPC and section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. I.A. No. 8734/2018 has been preferred for grant of Leave to Appeal.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ informant Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the State Mr. Moti Gope, Additional Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 to 5 Mr. P.A.S. Pati and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6 M/s. Apoorva Singh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though, Respondents have been convicted under section 498(A)/34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but they have not been convicted under section 313/34 and 323/504 IPC and section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, though there was sufficient materials on record. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in her evidence, P.W.14 Dr. Arti Shukla has categorically stated that it was a case of incomplete abortion of Maya Devi (appellant) that was the reason D and E test was done and termination of pregnancy was done due to bleeding and it was not possible to preserve the child. As such, the pregnancy was terminated and that termination has been proved before the court below, but the court below has not convicted the Respondents under sections 313/34 and also under section 323/504 IPC.