State vs Mahesh Chandra and Others

Heard Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/appellant and Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate holding brief of Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondents on special leave to appeal.

Special leave to appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 9.7.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Almora, in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1995, State versus Mahesh Chandra Mathpal and others, under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 201 I.P.C. thereby acquitting the accused-respondents Mahesh Chandra Mathpal, Smt. Shanti Devi and Km. Tulsi.

We have gone through the judgment passed by the trial court and it appears to us that the trial court has dealt with the evidence adduced by the prosecution in detail. The trial court has categorically recorded the finding that there is undue delay in lodging the First Information Report. The trial court has also come to the conclusion on the basis of assessment of the evidence that the story with regard to dowry death and torture appears to be fictitious being the production of imagination of some legal brain. The trial court has also discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and found material contradictions therein. The only independent witness Mohan Narain (PW-4) has turned hostile, as he has stated that deceased had died on account of fits. The other important witness PW-2 Km. Hansi, who is the real sister of the deceased, has stated that she was present in the house of her deceased brother at the time of commission of crime, but this witness could not narrate the specific reason on account of which the death occurred. In case, if this witness was present at the house of the deceased, then in the normal course of things, she would not have ignored of the prevailing state of affairs as well as the way in which the death of the deceased had occurred.

For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the judgment and order passed by the trial court acquitting the accused-respondents does not require any interference. We do not find any such infirmity in the judgment which warrants the interference at this stage.

Accordingly, special leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondents, is hereby dismissed.