AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 383 wordsHeard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents.
This appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal dated 29.07.2019 in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2017 arising out of Seikhpura P.S. Case No. 173 of 2008 registered under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per allegation, under pressure, the deceased son of the appellant was living in his Sasural and used to work at the saw mill of his father-in-law. On 25.3.2008, the deceased asked his mother to arrange Rs. 30,000/-. The appellant arranged the aforesaid amount and gave the same to her son. In turn, the deceased gave the amount to his father-in-law. On 10.4.2008, the deceased gave an information in this regard to his mother on phone. On 15.4.2008 the deceased met with Naresh Mistry who was the son of the sister of the appellant who informed the appellant that her son has been cheated and no shop has been opened. It has been alleged that with the connivance of in-laws and the wife, her son has been killed. She has stated that on 27.4.2008, she saw a dream that her son has been killed, whereafter, she went to the house of in-laws of the deceased on 29.4.2008 and tried to find out the whereabouts of her son but, she received a reply that they do not know about the deceased, whereafter, on 30.4.2008, the appellant again visited the house of the in-laws but, she did not buzz a word and she started weeping, whereafter, Baleshwar Mistry and his son Shankar Mistry, Sunil Mistry and Pappu Sharma came there and stated that they have killed her son and disappeared the body of the deceased and also stated that the appellant is at liberty to take any step whatever she likes.
In the present case, the finding has been recorded that the body of the deceased has not been recovered, the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined, save and except, strong suspicion against the respondents. There is also no evidence which reflects the attribution of allegation against the respondents.
Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the present appeal on account of bereft of evidence against the respondents.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.