High CourtsDivision Bench(2005) 09 UK CK 0004

State vs P.L. Malhotra

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 7 September 2005 · Citation: (2005) 3 UC 2054

HON’BLE JUDGES
Irshad Hussain, J · Brahma Singh Verma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Government Appeal No. 1605 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 368 words

Hon'ble B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Sh. K.S. Verma Learned Counsel for the Respondent/accused and Sh. G.S. Sandhu learned AGA for the Appellant.

2.

Having regard through the record and the facts of the case as disclosed from the record and judgment under appeal, we are convinced that this is not a fit case in which leave to appeal can be accorded u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3.

The reason being that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and there was delay of six days in lodging the FIR. This apart, Ms. Sarla Mishra who was Head Mistress of Kaushal Prasad Junior High School Rajpur Road, Dehradun died due to consumption of some poisonous substance and there was no evidence on record to indicate that at the time of consumption of poisonous substance, the Respondent-accused was accompanying her. It was the case of the prosecution that the Respondent accused was a treasurer, of the school and he used to harass the victim quite often and that the harassment was caused by the Respondent accused with some ulterior motive. We do not find any reliable witness to support the allegation of the prosecution. It was also alleged that the moped of the deceased was recovered from the cycle stand of Railway Station Dehradun at the instance of the accused Respondent. Contractor of the cycle stand namely Dharmendra Kumar (PW4) was the material witness in that regard but he did not support the prosecution case by stating that the moped was taken by the police. The learned Sessions Judge rightly inferred that the moped was not recovered at the instance of the Respondent-accused.

4.

The motive aspect was also considered and it was found that the accused-respondent has had no reason to administer any poisonous substance to the victim to cause her death. It is thus evident that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is based on proper appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the findings of learned Sessions Judge warrant no interference on re-appreciation of the evidence.

5.

In the aforesaid premise the leave to appeal cannot be accorded and therefore the same is hereby refused. The State appeal dismissed as such. Consign.