State of U.P. vs Anand Kumar Gupta and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the State.

This application u/s 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal has been moved against judgment and order dated 19.02.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. VIII, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 752 of 1998 whereby Respondents, namely, Annand Kumar Gupta, Shiv Kumar Gupta and Smt. Vibha Gupta have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B, read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

We have gone through the judgment of the court below as well as lower court record.

It comes out that one Sunita had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage in suspicious circumstances of which FIR was lodged by complainant Ramesh Kumar Gupta (PW-1) stating therein that husband of his sister Sunita, namely, Annand Kumar Gupta, JethShiv Kumar Gupta and Jethani Smt. Vibha used to torture her for bringing Rs. 50,000/-and since the demand of the Respondents was not fulfilled, she committed suicide due to frustration. In support of its case the prosecution has examined complainant Ramesh Kumar Gupta, who is brother of Sunita, as PW-1 and another brother, namely, Shyam Ji Gupta as PW-3. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that on one occasion brother of the deceased had given Rs. 18,000/-of his own free will to Annand Kumar Gupta for opening a shop. The case which was developed by the prosecution later on is that since Rs. 50,000/-had further been demanded and the same was not given, Sunita had committed suicide.

We have also seen the description of postmortem mentioned at page-4 of the judgment and we find that the findings arrived at by the court below seem to be germane and the evidence led by the prosecution has very well been appreciated. The Court has come to the conclusion that Sunita had committed suicide on her own. It is also finding of the court below that there was no demand of dowry, as such, the case does not fall within the parameter of Section 498-A IPC. It has also been held that the provisions of Section 304-B IPC are not attracted for the reasons that the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have not come in the evidence led by the prosecution.

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the court below.

Accordingly, the application is rejected and prayer for grant of leave to appeal is refused.