Pariwarik Suraksha (Regd.) Ph. 9312800559
|
Home | Aims | News | Legal Help | Campaigns | Support Us | Contact Us |
||||||||
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT:
SECTION 406 IPC Criminal
Revision Petition 521/2005 Date
of Decision : SWEETY
.....Petitioner
Through : Mr.B.D.Goel,Advocate Versus SMT.PRAKASH KAUR
&
ORS
....Respondent
Through : Mr.O.P.Saxena,
Advocate for R-4/State. R.S.SODHI
J: 1.
Criminal Revision Petition 521/2005 is directed against the judgment and order
dated 2.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Smt.Sweety was
married to Sh.Manjeet Singh on 24.11.93. After marriage, parties resided
at 1948-B/151, Tri Nagar,
On 4.6.97 at about 6 PM Sweety was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital, Mangol
Puri,
Next contention of the prosecution is that on 4.6.97 at about 4/5 PM husband
Manjeet Singh attempted to murder his wife Sweety by pouring kerosene oil and
burning her. Manjeet Singh was accordingly charged with the commission of
an offence punishable U/s 307 IPC. Manjeet Singh, Prakash Kaur and
Jogender Singh were also charged U/s 406 IPC R/W Section 34 IPC for
mis-appropriating the 'Istridhan' comprising of the dowry articles given to her
at the time of marriage.â€
3.
It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the statement of PW-1,
Smt.Sweety is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and that the
trial court has gone wrong in not relying upon her when she herself is the
victim of the cruelty. He has taken me through the judgment of the case
as also the statements of the witnesses. From a perusal therefrom it
appears that the story put forth by the prosecution as narrated by PW-1, Smt.
Sweety has found no corroboration. On the other hand, there appears to be
substance in the case put up by the defence. 4.
The trial court has elaborately dealt with the statement of Smt.Sweety as also
the other witnesses and has returned a finding that no offence under Section
498-A IPC or under Section 406 IPC is made out. 5.
I have carefully gone through the judgment and the reasoning advanced by the
trial judge and find that the same suffers from no infirmity. It is also
pertinent to point out that the State has not filed an appeal against the
judgment of acquittal. 6.
Since I find no miscarriage of justice, I see no reason to entertain this
petition. 7.
Criminal Revision Petition 521/2005 is dismissed.
[R.S.
SODHI, J]
| | |||||||