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 3, Cited by 2]

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Santosh Kumar Kurre 11 Wps/7960/2019 ... on 25 September, 2019

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                                                    NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         CRMP No. 479 of 2018

     • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Incharge Police Station
       Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Applicant

                                 Versus

     1. Santosh Kumar Kurre, S/o Samay Lal Kurre, Aged About 25
        Years, R/o Village Devada Police Station Ghumka, District
        Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

     2. Smt. Kamla Bai Kurre, W/o Samay Lal Kurre, Aged About 50
        Years, R/o Village Devada, Police Station Ghumka, District
        Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Respondent

For Applicant Shri Vikas Shrivastava, PL Hon'ble Justice Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Justice Shri Gautam Chourdiya Order On Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra J. 25/09/2019

1. On due consideration, delay of 77 days in fling the CRMP is condoned. Accordingly, IA No.1/2018 is allowed.

2. Learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 304-B/34 of IPC, in alternative Section 302/34 of IPC.

3. The deceased Uttara Bai, a deaf and dumb girl, was married with respondent No.1 Santosh Kumar Kurre about 3 years prior to death on 04.11.2015. In the charge sheet, there was allegation of commission of cruelty for demand of dowry in form of demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle. However, the witnesses have stated that the said demand was made because the respondent No.1 being in a private job as a driver was required to go to Durg and for that he needed a motorcycle to commute. It is thus clear that demand of Rs.50,000/- was not connected with marriage. Such demand does not constitute demand of dowry.

4. There is no allegation of demand of any other nature either in cash or any kind connected with the marriage of the deceased with the respondent No.1.

5. No case for grant of leave to appeal against acquittal is made out.

6. Accordingly, the CRMP is dismissed.

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

Nirala