# The State of U.P v. Dharmu @ Dharam Singh

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 287
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-14
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 1450 of 1989
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Vikram D Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-state-of-u-p-v-dharmu-dharam-singh-48313
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 376-challenge
to-acquittal-victim aged about 9 years
did not budge from the prosecution
version, she identified the accused, she
stated time and place of accident which
has been duly testified and proved by
the
informant
(PW-1)-blood
stained
underwear was recovered-Moreso, she
declined the specific query whether she
has been tutored-testimony of the victim
duly corroborated by the medical expert
opinion, merely for the reason that the
supplementary
medical
examination
report that the offence was committed
24-30 hrs and the same was not noted
by the medical expert while examining
the prosecutrix would not reject the
testimony of the victim-The conviction
of the accused can rest on the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix provided
she is a sterling witness; her testimony
is credible, truthful and trustworthyFurther
the
shortcoming
of
the
prosecution, if any, would not benefit
the defence-The sole testimony of the
victim was sufficient to have convicted
the accused.(Para 1 to 25)

B. The sterling witness should be of a
very high quality. to test the quality of
such witness, what would be more
relevant would be the consistency of the
statement right from the starting point
till the end, it should be natural. The
witness should be in a position to
withstand the cross-examination of any
length and howsoever strenuous it may
be and under no circumstances should
give room for any doubt as to the factum
of the occurrence, the persons involved,
as well as the sequence of it.(Para 18)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Dharmu @ Dharam Singh
287
found to be fake by the insurance company
before the learned tribunal. Therefore, there
exists no any cause to disturb the findings
recorded by learned tribunal in this regard.

25. In view of the above, this appeal
is
dismissed.
The
appellant/Insurance
Company is liable to indemnify the
respondents. Claimants be given the same
without keeping in the fixed deposit as
more than 16 years have elapsed.

26. There is no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)04ILR A287
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D CHAUHAN, J.

Government Appeal No. 1450 of 1989

The State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Dharmu @ Dharam Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Vinay Saran, Sri Virendra Saran, Sri Ajay
Kumar Srivastava

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 376-challenge
to-acquittal-victim aged about 9 years
did not budge from the prosecution
version, she identified the accused, she
stated time and place of accident which
has been duly testified and proved by
the
informant
(PW-1)-blood
stained
underwear was recovered-Moreso, she
declined the specific query whether she
has been tutored-testimony of the victim
duly corroborated by the medical expert
opinion, merely for the reason that the
supplementary
medical
examination
report that the offence was committed
24-30 hrs and the same was not noted
by the medical expert while examining
the prosecutrix would not reject the
testimony of the victim-The conviction
of the accused can rest on the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix provided
she is a sterling witness; her testimony
is credible, truthful and trustworthyFurther
the
shortcoming
of
the
prosecution, if any, would not benefit
the defence-The sole testimony of the
victim was sufficient to have convicted
the accused.(Para 1 to 25)

B. The sterling witness should be of a
very high quality. to test the quality of
such witness, what would be more
relevant would be the consistency of the
statement right from the starting point
till the end, it should be natural. The
witness should be in a position to
withstand the cross-examination of any
length and howsoever strenuous it may
be and under no circumstances should
give room for any doubt as to the factum
of the occurrence, the persons involved,
as well as the sequence of it.(Para 18)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Rai Sandeep Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8
SCC 21

2. Sham Singh Vs St. of Har. (2018) 18 SCC 34

3. St. of Punj. Vs Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC
384

4. Ranjit Hazarika Vs St. of Assam (1998) 8 SCC
635

5. St. of M.P. Vs Babulal (2008) 1 SCC 234

6. Dinesh Vs St. of Raj. (2006) 3 SCC 77

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Vikas Goswami, learned
Additional Government Advocate and Sri
Ajay Kumar Srivastava learned counsel
appearing for the accused respondent.

2. The instant appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated 25
February 1989 passed by the Sessions
Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.
784 of 1988 (State vs. Dharmu alias
Dharam Singh) arising from Case Crime
No. 183 of 1988, under Section 376 IPC,
Police
Station
Kannauj,
District
Farrukhabad, whereby, accused-respondent
was acquitted.

3. As per prosecution case FIR came
to be lodged on 21.05.1988 at 18:40 hours,
alleging that daughter of the complainant,
aged about 10 years, had gone out at 10:00
a.m. to graze goats, accused reached at the
field where accused caught hold of his
daughter and dropped her on the ground
holding her mouth and committed offence
of rape. The persons passing nearby
exhorted the accused, he thereafter ran
away. It is further alleged that the victim
was bleeding from her private part; on
return, to the house after selling bangles,
complainant was informed of the incident.

4.
 The
victim
was
medically
examined on 22.05.1988 at 3:00 p.m.
Supplementary
medical
report
was
prepared after receiving the x-ray report;
age of the victim was assessed 9 years; in
the opinion of the medical expert, rape was
committed 24 to 30 hours earlier.

5. The charge-sheet came to be filed
against the accused respondent under
Section 376 IPC. The accused respondent
was summoned to stand trial. In defence, he
denied the allegations and demanded trial.
No defence witness was produced. The
Trial Court acquitted the accused as the
prosecution failed to prove the charge
beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court
reached a finding that the victim was
tutored and that the time of the alleged
incident as per the medical expert opinion
does not corroborate with the alleged time
of the incident.

6. Prosecution to prove the charge
examined in all 5 witnesses of fact;
complainant, Ram Sewak (PW-1), father of
the victim, victim (PW-2), Dr. P. Singh
(PW-3), S.I. A.K. Singh (PW-4), Head
Moharrir Ganga Prasad (PW-5).

7. The following documents were
exhibited:

1.
F.I.R.
21.05.1988
Ex. Ka. 8
2.
Written Report
21.05.1988
Ex. Ka. 1
3.
Recovery Memo and
supurdginama
of
''Under-Wear'
21.05.1989
Ex. Ka.7
4.
Injury Report
22.05.1988
Ex. Ka. 2
5.
Supplementary Report 24.05.1988
Ex. Ka. 3
6.
Site Plan with Index
22.05.1988
Ex. Ka. 6

8. PW-1, father of the victim, in
Examination-in-Chief stated that when he
returned home at 3:00 p.m. on the day of
incident he saw that the physical condition
of his daughter was in bad state; private
part of the prosecutrix was bleeding, blood
was visible on her underwear. He further
stated that he was informed by the victim
that accused had committed the offence of
rape. He further stated that he got the report
transcribed by Jeetan Lal on his dictation.
He further stated that at 4:00 p.m., he
alongwith his daughter and other villagers
had gone to the police station. In crossexamination, he reiterated the FIR version
4 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Dharmu @ Dharam Singh
289
and stated that on returning to his house at
3:00 p.m., 3-4 persons of the village had
assembled and were talking with his
daughter, she informed him of the incident;
he denied the suggestion that he had
reported the incident after due consultation.

9. PW-2, victim stated that she is aged
about 9-10 years, the Trial Court assessed
her intelligence by putting several question
to
ascertain
as
to
whether
victim
understood the questions. On specific query
of the court, she stated that she is not
educated, she was aware of her father's
earning by selling bangles, 4 bangles are
sold for one rupee; 8 bangles in 2 rupee. On
specific query, she recognised the accused
respondent present in the court and narrated
the incident stating that accused had caught
hold of her and dropped her on the ground,
removed her underwear and committed the
offence. She incurred injuries; blood had
come out and stained her underwear,
thereafter, accused escaped from the spot.
On specific query, she stated that she
narrated
the
incident
to
her
father,
thereafter, report was lodged. She further
stated that she accompanied her father to
the police station. On query she stated that
the incident had occurred at the agricultural
field of Jhabba. On specific query by the
defence as to whether she had been tutored,
she denied and answered in negative.

10. Dr. P. Singh, PW-3, stated that she
examined the victim on 22.05.1988; she did
not find injury on the body of victim on
external
examination;
on
internal
examination injury was found on the
private part and it was bleeding; to
ascertain the age of the victim she advised
x-ray; supplement report was prepared on
24.05.1988 after receiving the x-ray report.
In her opinion, the victim was aged about 9
years; incident of rape occurred 24 to 30
hours; she prepared the supplementary
report; x-ray report dated 24.05.1988 was
prepared by Dr. S.K. Rathour.

11. On specific query by the Trial
court as to why she did not give her opinion
of rape on examining the victim on
22.05.1988; the witness replied that she
was awaiting the x-ray report, therefore,
she did not give any opinion. She further
stated that normally the information of rape
is given after receiving the x-ray report; in
this case there is no report of pathology
otherwise opinion is generally given after
receiving either x-ray report or pathology
report. She further stated that the x-ray of
the victim was done for the purposes of
determining the age and not to ascertain
whether offence of rape was committed. On
drawing the attention of the witness (PW-3)
with regard to her opinion that "I came to
conclusion that her age is about Nine Years.
Rape has been done. Duration of injury
about twenty four to thirty Hrs". On query
she stated that victim was not produced on
24.05.1988; opinion of the approximate
time of the crime of offence is based on
medical
examination
report
dated
22.05.1988 when the victim was produced
for medical examination and the opinion is
based
on
the
injury
report
dated
22.05.1988. On suggestion as to whether
the victim could have incurred injury on
her private part by falling from a cot or any
other manner, the witness declined and
answered
in
negative.
The
witness
categorically stated that injury could not
have been caused by falling from a cot.

12. S.I. A.K. Singh, (PW-4), deposed
that the investigation was entrusted to him
on 22.06.1988. He recorded the statement
of the victim and the complainant on
16.07.1988. On 12.08.1988 he recorded the
statement of the accused in jail. The site
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plan was prepared on 22.05.1988; recovery
memo of underwear of the victim was
prepared by the constable Ganga Prasad.
Charge-sheet was filed on 12.08.1988.

13. Head Moharrir Ganga Prasad
(PW-5), deposed that he had taken the
underwear of the victim on 21.05.1988 at
police station.

14. The Trial Court rejected the
testimony of the victim on being tutored,
hence, not trustworthy. The opinion of the
medical expert (PW-3) was also rejected as
in the opinion of the court in the
supplementary examination report dated
24.05.1988, it was opined that rape has
been committed on the prosecutrix and
duration of injury was 24 to 30 hours. The
probable
time
recorded
in
the
supplementary
affidavit
does
not
corroborate the time of the alleged incident
of rape. It is further noted that PW-3, Dr. P.
Singh was unable to submit plausible
explanation as to why she did not record
her opinion on the point of rape on
22.05.1988 itself when she examined the
victim as also the duration of injury.
According to the Trial Court, negligence on
the part of the medical expert was
considered fatal to the case of the
prosecution. Further, the court directed
District Magistrate and Chief Medical
Officer to inquire into the circumstances
under which PW-3 failed to give proper
opinion on the point of rape and duration of
injury on 22.05.1988. The relevant portion
of the judgment is extracted:

"A perusal of the aforesaid
statement of the prosecutrix reveals that the
reply which the prosecutrix gave to the
questions put to her by the Public
Prosecutor was probably the result of
tutoring. ........... In the instant case before
this court, I find that even the Investigating
Officer S.I. A.K. Singh had examined the
prosecutrix after a lapse of a period of one
month and 22 days, the occurrence having
taken place on 21.05.1988 (wrongly
mentioned
as
21.06.1988)
and
the
statement of the prosecutrix having being
recorded on 16.07.1988. The circumstances
that even the Investigating agency never
bothered to record the statement of the
prosecutrix promptly fully go to show that
the answers to the questions which the
prosecutrix has given in reply to the
questions put to her by the Public
Prosecutor is the out come of her tutoring.

"Now coming to the evidence of
Dr. (Smt.) P. Singh (P.W. 3), Medical
Officer, Women Hospital, Fatehgarh, I find
that on 25.05.1988, Dr. (Smt.) P. Singh
never gave any opinion on the point of
rape. She mentioned in her supplementary
medical
examination
report
dated
24.05.1988 that rape has been committed
upon the prosecutrix and the duration of
injury was 25 to 30 hours. Dr. (Smt.) P.
Singh was unable to submit any plausible
explanation as to why she did not state her
opinion on the point of rape right on
22.05.1988 as also the duration of injury.
When Dr. (Smt.) P. Singh had medically
examined the prosecutrix on 22.05.1988
and when the prosecutrix was referred to
her for examination as a case of rape by the
Police, it was her bounden duty to have
given her opinion on the point of rape right
on
22.05.1988.
She
ought
to
have
mentioned the duration of injury right on
22.05.1988. The negligence on the part of
Dr. (Smt.) P. Singh in this behalf is
considered fatal to the case of prosecution.
I leave it to the discretion of the District
Magistrate and the Chief Medical Officer to
enquire into the circumstances under which
Dr. (Smt.) P. Singh failed to give her proper
opinion on the point of rape and duration of
4 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Dharmu @ Dharam Singh
291
injury on 22.05.1988 and under what
circumstances she wrote after two days in
her injury report that rape had been
committed and that the duration of the
injury was about 25 to 30 hours".

15. It is settled legal position that the
evidence of rape victim stands at par with
the evidence of an injured witness. Injury
of the rape victim being physical, as well
as, psychological in the form of traumatised
assault and ravishment of her chastity and
womanhood. It is also settled that if the
evidence
of
the
prosecutrix
inspires
confidence and appears to be trustworthy
and natural, no further corroboration by an
independent
eye-witness
is
required.
Corroboration
from
medical
evidence
varies from case to case as it depends upon
the circumstances of each case.

16. We have gone through the crossexamination of the victim. It runs into 9
typed pages; the Trial Court, the defence
counsel and the prosecution, severely
grilled the victim, aged about 9-10 years.
However, we find that the victim did not
budge from the prosecution version; she
identified the accused; she categorically
stated
that
the
accused
respondent
commited the offence; she further stated the
time of incident; site of the incident; and on
specific query as to whether she has
deposed on being tutored, she declined. The
court after examining the witnesses of fact
and considering the circumstances was of
the opinion that the victim is intelligent
enough and is able to understand the
questions. It is to be noted that there is no
major contradiction in her statement with
regard to the incident; and her testimony is
truthful, credible and trustworthy having
regard
to
the
fact
that
victim
is
illiterate/villagers,
coming
from
marginalised section of society and is not
worldly-wise; statement of the victim
supports the prosecution case which has
been duly testified and proved by the
informant (PW-1). The site plan prepared
on 22.05.1988, as per the persecution
version i.e. agricultural field of Chhabi
Nath.

17. The fact that witness being a
tutored one should be reflected from the
over all style of deposition and all the
attending circumstances. A tutored witness
normally sticks to his/her earlier statement
very faithfully. This is also not the case in
the present matter because the testimony of
the witness before the court is silent about a
few facts.

18. Who can be said to be a "sterling
witness',
has
been
dealt
with
and
considered in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of
Delhi)1. In para 22, it is observed and held
as under:

"In our considered opinion, the
''sterling witness' should be of a very high
quality and caliber whose version should,
therefore, be unassailable. The Court
considering the version of such witness
should be in a position to accept it for its
face value without any hesitation. To test
the quality of such a witness, the status of
the witness would be immaterial and what
would be relevant is the truthfulness of the
statement made by such a witness. What
would be more relevant would be the
consistency of the statement right from the
starting point till the end, namely, at the
time when the witness makes the initial
statement and ultimately before the Court.
It should be natural and consistent with the
case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in
the version of such a witness. The witness
should be in a position to withstand the
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cross- examination of any length and
howsoever strenuous it may be and under
no circumstance should give room for any
doubt as to the factum of the occurrence,
the persons involved, as well as, the
sequence of it. Such a version should have
co-relation with each and everyone of other
supporting material such as the recoveries
made, the weapons used, the manner of
offence committed, the scientific evidence
and the expert opinion. The said version
should consistently match with the version
of every other witness. It can even be stated
that it should be akin to the test applied in
the case of circumstantial evidence where
there should not be any missing link in the
chain of circumstances to hold the accused
guilty of the offence alleged against him.
Only if the version of such a witness
qualifies the above test as well as all other
similar such tests to be applied, it can be
held that such a witness can be called as a
''sterling witness' whose version can be
accepted by the Court without any
corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise,
the version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intact
while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the Court
trying the offence to rely on the core
version to sieve the other supporting
materials for holding the offender guilty of
the charge alleged."

19. In the case of Sham Singh v.
State of Haryana2, it is observed that
testimony of the victim is vital and unless
there
are
compelling
reasons
which
necessitate looking for corroboration of her
statement, the courts should find no
difficulty to act on the testimony of the
victim of sexual assault alone to convict an
accused where her testimony inspires
confidence and is found to be reliable. The
courts should not get swayed by minor or
insignificant contradictions/ discrepancies
in the statement of the prosecutrix. In
paragraphs 6 & 7, it is observed and held as
under:

"6. We are conscious that the
courts shoulder a great responsibility while
trying an accused on charges of rape. They
must deal with such cases with utmost
sensitivity. The courts should examine the
broader probabilities of a case and not get
swayed
by
minor
contradictions
or
insignificant discrepancies in the statement
of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal
nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable
prosecution case. If the evidence of the
prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be
relied upon without seeking corroboration
of her statement in material particulars. If
for some reason the court finds it difficult
to place implicit reliance on her testimony,
it may look for evidence which may lend
assurance to her testimony, short of
corroboration required in the case of an
accomplice.
The
testimony
of
the
prosecutrix must be appreciated in the
background of the entire case and the court
must be alive to its responsibility and be
sensitive
while
dealing
with
cases
involving sexual molestations or sexual
assaults. [See: State of Punjab v. Gurmit
Singh3].

7. It is also by now well settled
that the courts must, while evaluating
evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a
case of rape, no self-respecting woman
would come forward in a court just to make
a humiliating statement against her honour
such as is involved in the commission of
rape on her. In cases involving sexual
molestation,
supposed
considerations
which have no material effect on the
4 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Dharmu @ Dharam Singh
293
veracity of the prosecution case or even
discrepancies in the statement of the
prosecutrix
should
not,
unless
the
discrepancies are such which are of fatal
nature, be allowed to throw out an
otherwise reliable prosecution case. The
inherent bashfulness of the females and the
tendency to conceal outrage of sexual
aggression are factors which the courts
should not overlook. The testimony of the
victim in such cases is vital and unless
there
are
compelling
reasons
which
necessitate looking for corroboration of her
statement, the courts should find no
difficulty to act on the testimony of a
victim of sexual assault alone to convict an
accused where her testimony inspires
confidence and is found to be reliable.
Seeking corroboration of her statement
before relying upon the same, as a rule, in
such cases amounts to adding insult to
injury. (See: Ranjit Hazarika v. State of
Assam4).

20. Further, the testimony of the
victim is duly corroborated by the
medical expert opinion, internal medical
examination notes the injury on the
private part including blood seen therein;
blood stained underwear of the victim
was recovered on the date of incident at
the police station (per PW-5). The factum
of injury and the blood present on the
private part is duly corroborated by
statement of the informant, victim and
medical expert opinion. The contents of
the report has not been doubted by the
defence.
The
medical
opinion
was
doubted merely for the reason that in the
medical examination report the expert has
not mentioned the probable time of rape.
The Trial Court committed serious error
in rejecting the testimony and the report
of the medical expert (PW-3), merely for
the
reason
that
the
supplementary
medical examination report notes that the
offence was committed 24-30 hours and
the same was not noted by the medical
expert while examining the prosecutrix
on 22.05.1988. The short coming of the
prosecution, if any, would not benefit the
defence, nor can the defence take any
advantage. The prosecution case has to
stand
on
its
own
legs,
and
the
incriminating circumstances has to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

21. The conviction of the accused
respondent can rest on the sole testimony
of the prosecutrix provided she is a
sterling
witness;
her
testimony
is
credible,
truthful
and
trustworthy.
Further, the accused cannot take any
advantage that there was some short
coming in the investigation i.e. the
statement of the victim not recorded
promptly by the Investigating Officer or
the medical expert not recording her
opinion that rape was committed on the
report when the victim was examined.

22. We have no hesitation, in the
given facts, and having regard to the
testimony of victim (PW-2) and medical
expert (PW-3), the charge against the
accused respondent stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The sole testimony of the
victim was sufficient to have convicted the
accused respondent. In our opinion, the
finding reached by the Trial Court is per-se
perverse and against the testimony of the
victim,
duly
supported
by
medical
evidence.

23. The courts are expected to try and
decide cases of sexual crime against
women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases
need to be dealt with sternly and severely.
A socially sensitized Judge is a better
armour in cases of crime against women
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
than long clauses of penal provisions,
containing
complex
exceptions
and
complicated provisos.

24. Once a person is convicted for an
offence of rape, he should be treated with a
heavy hand. An undeserved indulgence or
liberal attitude in not awarding adequate
sentence in such cases would amount to
allowing or even to encouraging 'potential
criminals'. The society can no longer
endure under such serious threats. Courts
must hear the loud cry for justice by society
in cases of heinous crime of rape and
impose
adequate
sentence.
Public
abhorrence of the crime needs reflection
through imposition of appropriate sentence
by the Court. [Refer: State of M.P. v.
Babulal5 and Dinesh Vs. State of
Rajshtan]6

25. In view thereof, government
appeal is allowed. The order dated 25
February 1989, passed by the Sessions
Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.
784 of 1988 (State vs. Dharmu alias
Dharam Singh) arising from Case Crime
No. 183 of 1988, under Section 376 IPC,
Police
Station
Kannauj,
District
Farrukhabad, is set aside.

26. Accused-respondent Dharmu alias
Dharam Singh is, hereby, held guilty. He is
convicted under Section 376 IPC and
sentenced
to
10
years
rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, on
default of deposition of fine the accused
respondent shall serve one year simple
imprisonment. Rs.20,000/- of the fine so
realized, shall be given to the victim
towards
compensation.
The
accused,
Dharmu alias Dharam Singh, is on bail. His
bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged. He should be taken into
custody forthwith to serve out the sentence
awarded to him. The office is directed to
communicate this order to the CJM
concerned within a week for compliance.

27. The trial court record, along with
the copy of this order, be returned
forthwith.
----------
(2022)04ILR A294
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Govt. Appeal No. 1000636 of 2006

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Lallan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. C.S. Pandey, A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 378 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A, 304-B &
201 & Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Section
3/4-challenge
to-acquittaldeceased died an unnatural death in her
matrimonial home-she committed suicide
by hanging-she was suffering from 'fits of
unconciousness'-father of the deceased
PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that
he incurred all expenditure of treatment
till she was alive-demand of passion
motorcycle by in-laws is false, at that
relevant time Passion motorcycle was not
launched in the market, to prove the same
letter of the concerned Agency was filedMoreso, the incident did not occur within
seven years of the marriage of the
deceased, but after seven years-accused
not only proved that the marriage was
solemnized before 7 years by producing