Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 15]

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Vishnu Rathore 68 Crmp/1160/2019 State ... on 10 July, 2019

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                                                    NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         CRMP No.1159 of 2019

     • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pamgarh District
       Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

                                                            ---- Petitioner

                                 Versus

     1. Vishnu Rathore S/o Late Saheblal Aged About 50 Years

     2. Saraswati Rathore W/o Vishnu Prasad Aged About 45 Years

     3. Yogesh Rathore S/o Vishnu Prasad Aged About 25 Years

     4. Narayan Rathore S/o Vishnue Prasad Aged About 30 Years

        All are R/o Village Dharashiv, Police Station Pamgarh, District
        Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

                                                       ---- Respondents

For Appellant Shri Santosh Bharat, PL Hon'ble Justice Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Justice Mr. Goutam Chourdiya Order On Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra J. 10/07/2019

1. On due consideration, IA No.1/2019, application for condonation of delay in filing the CRMP, is allowed and the delay of 300 days in filing the CRMP is condoned.

2. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 304-B of IPC.

3. Statement of PW-1 Ganesh Ram, father of the deceased, would highlight that the deceased was treated with cruelty in the name of dowry, however, he has not stated about demand of any particular item or cash. In the cross-examination, this witness would admit that the main dispute between his daughter and son- in-law was concerning his ill habit of drinking and gambling.

4. There being no specific allegation of demand of any particular item or cash and in view of the evidence about the main reason about their soured relation, the offence under Section 304-B of IPC is not made.

5. No case for interference in this CRMP is made out. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-
              Prashant Kumar Mishra                         Gautam Chourdiya
                    Judge                                         Judge
Nirala