State of U.P. (now State of Uttarakhand) v. Kamal Kishore Sharma & Ors.

Mr. Vinod Sharma, Dy. Advocate, General with Mr. Vipul Painuly, A.G.A, present for the State/appellant. Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate, present for the respondents. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.1998, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1995, whereby said court has 2 acquitted accused/respondents Kamal Kishore Sharma, Vijay Kishore Sharma and Sarla Sharma from the charge of offences punishable under section 498A, 328, 506, 307/34 IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

#2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.

#3. Prosecution story in brief is that P.W. 2 Radha Sharma got married to accused/ respondent Kamal Kishore Sharma on

09.12.1993. It is alleged by her in the first information report that after her marriage she was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry by her husband Kamal Kishore Sharma, brother-in-law Vijay Kumar Sharma, mother-in-law Sarla Sharma and father- in-law Gangadhar Sharma. It is further alleged by her that the accused/respondent used to ask the complainant that their demand of one scooter and cash of ` 10,000/- be fulfilled. On expressing inability she was beaten by 3 accused/respondents, and on 14.01.1994, she was administered some stupefying drug with tea. It is further alleged by her in the first information report that her elder sister Karuna Sharma (P.W. 4), and her brother-in-law Pradeep Sharma (P.W. 1) took her to hospital for her treatment. The report was initially lodged in District Muzaffarnagar but the same later transferred to Police Station Manglaur, District Hardwar. Investigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector Ram Prakash Mishra who, after interrogation of the witnesses, and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the three accused namely Kamal Kishore Sharma, Vijay Kishore Sharma and Sarla Sharma (present respondents) for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 498A, 328, 506, 307/34 IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

#4. The Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case 4 to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee,

17.09.1996, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under section 498A, 328, 506, 307/34 IPC. The accused/ respondents Kamal Kishore Sharma, Vijay Kishore Sharma and Sarla Sharma were further charged in respect of offence punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the three accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Pradeep Sharma, P.W.2 Radha Sharma (informant), P.W.3 Dr. C.S. Rawat and P.W.4 Karuna Sharma (declared hostile). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which accused pleaded that evidence adduced against them in respect of demand of dowry is false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties found that prosecution has failed to prove the charge of offences punishable under section 498A, 328, 506, 307/34 IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and acquitted all 5 the three accused namely Kamal Kishore Sharma, Vijay Kishore Sharma and Sarla Sharma from the charge. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 21.12.1998, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1995, this appeal was filed by the State before Allahabad High Court from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal.

#5. P.W.2 Radha Sharma is the star witness of this case who has stated in her examination in chief that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband Kamal Kishore Shrma, brother-in-law Vijay Kishore Sharma, mother-in-law Sarla Sharma and father-in-law Gangadhar Sharma. She has further told that they used to demand a scooter and cash of ` 10,000/- in the dowry. She further told that she was subjected to cruelty and on 14.01.1994, forced to drink tea which contained poison. However, the cross- examination of this witness shows that she has taken somersault and denied the prosecution 6 case narrated by her in the examination in chief. She told in her cross-examination that none of the accused/respondents Kamal Kishore Sharma, Vijay Kumar Sharma and Sarla Sharma ever demanded scooter in the dowry or made any other demand. She further told that her father-in- law used to take medicines every day and she on

14.01.1994, might had taken medicines of her father-in-law. In her cross examination she further told that she was never subject to cruelty or beaten by her husban . After going through the evidence of above nature which is contradicted by P.W.2 Radha Sharma herself could not have been relied, and this Court is of the view the trial court has rightly held that the charge against the accused is not proved.

#6. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.4 Karuna Sharma who is a real elder sister of informant (P.W.2 Radha Sharma) has also not supported the prosecution case and she was declared hostile.

#7. Now this Court thinks it just and proper 7 to discuss the evidence adduced by P.W.3 Dr. C.S. Rawat who has stated that Radha Sharma was admitted in District Hospital Muzaffarnagar and she was treated as it appeared to be a case of suspected poisoning. It has come in the evidence of aforesaid medical officer that the substance taken out from the stomach of the patient was preserved for analysis. The report of Forensic Laboratory Agra is on the record from page no. 102/2 to 102/3. The conclusion of analysis made at the Forensic Laboratory Report shows that the contents sent for analysis contained diazepam Tranquilizer. As such, it can safely be said that P.W.2 Radha Sharma might have taken tranquilizer with tea. She herself has denied that she was made to drink tea by the accused/ respondents.

#8. In the above circumstances, reappreciation of evidence, this Court finds that the trial court has committed no illegality in holding that the prosecution failed to prove charge of offences punishable under section 498A, 328, 506, 307/34 IPC, and one punishable 8 under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

#9. Accordingly, the appeal against acquittal, is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. Parul (Prafulla C. Pant,J.) 12.09.2012