Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/102/2005 of NARENDRA SINGH Vs RANA PRATAP SINGH and ORS. on 31 December 2012
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 102/2005 Narendra Singh ……… Revisionist Versus Rana Pratap & Others ………. Respondents None for the revisionist. Mr. VD Bisen, Advocate, for the respondents. 31st December, 2012 Hon’ble
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 102/2005
Narendra Singh
……… Revisionist
Versus
Rana Pratap & Others
………. Respondents
None for the revisionist. Mr. VD Bisen, Advocate, for the respondents.
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
None has turned up on behalf of the revisionist even in the second revised call. Since, this case pertains to the year 2005, therefore, hearing was extended to learned Counsel for the respondents. Also perused the papers on record.
2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 30.3.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2004, respondents Rana Pratap and Veer Bahadur Singh have been acquitted from the offences under Section 498A, 323 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and the judgment and order dated 29.11.2004, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur was set aside. The appellate court acquitted the respondents for the reason that there were enough contradictions in the statements of PW1 (informer), PW2 (bride) and PW3. These material contradictions have been narrated in the impugned judgment and order at its internal page 6. Besides, it was also found that several litigations were launched by the wife in different cities in order to torture her husband Rana Pratap and that is why she lost all the litigations including one under Section 406 IPC.
3. This Court also considered the grounds of revision, which are without any substance. The same are stereotyped and typed in mundane manner.
4. This revision is bereft of any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)
31.12.2012 Prabodh