Veer Singh Verma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SC)
(2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15332
From the Database of www.lawtodaylive.com
Supreme Court of India
Before: Ranjan Gogoi CJI. & Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 154 of 2019
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10210 of 2017]

Decided on: 28.01.2019
Veer Singh Verma - Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR, Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv., Mr. Syed Ahmed Daanish, Adv., Ms. Uzmu Jamil Husain, Av., Mr. Milan Laskar, Adv.

For Respondent(s):

Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 227 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 304-B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Dowry death case -- Acquittal of co-accused/wife in separate trial -- Discharge application by appellant/husband – Consideration of -- In acquittal judgment of wife, categorical findings have been recorded that she along with her husband/appellant were present in particular State on the date of the occurrence, which attained finality – No reason, why the High Court has taken the view that accused appellant was in that State on the date of occurrence needed to be proved in the course of the trial – High Court, ought to have discharged the accused/appellant – Appeal allowed, order of the High Court set aside -- Appellant ordered to be discharged.

(Para 3-6)

ORDER

1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The accused appellant – Veer Singh Verma is aggrieved by the refusal of the courts below to discharge him of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The basis on which discharge was sought is that in the separate trial against the accused appellant’s wife Munni Devi, the learned trial Court had recorded categorical findings that Munni Devi along with the present appellant, on the date of the occurrence, were in Assam. This was on the basis of the evidence of D.Ws. 10, 11, 12 and 16.

5. We have read and considered the findings of the learned trial Court in the judgment by which the wife of the accused appellant (i.e. Munni Devi) has been acquitted. In the said judgment, categorical findings have been recorded that Munni Devi along with her husband Veer Singh Verma i.e. present appellant were in Assam on the date of the occurrence.

6. Acquittal of Munni Devi has attained finality. If that is so, we do not see why the High Court has taken the view that the said fact i.e. that the accused appellant was in Assam on the date of occurrence needed to be proved in the course of the trial. On the basis of the judgment passed in the case of the wife of the appellant herein, the High Court, in our considered view, ought to have discharged the accused appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court and order for the discharge of the appellant herein in case Crime No.247/2005 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered with P.S. Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar.

7. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Appeal allowed.

********

www.lawtodaylive.com
Veer Singh Verma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SC)
(2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15332
From the Database of www.lawtodaylive.com
Supreme Court of India
Before: Ranjan Gogoi CJI. & Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 154 of 2019
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10210 of 2017]

Decided on: 28.01.2019
Veer Singh Verma - Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR, Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv., Mr. Syed Ahmed Daanish, Adv., Ms. Uzmu Jamil Husain, Av., Mr. Milan Laskar, Adv.

For Respondent(s):

Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 227 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 304-B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Dowry death case -- Acquittal of co-accused/wife in separate trial -- Discharge application by appellant/husband – Consideration of -- In acquittal judgment of wife, categorical findings have been recorded that she along with her husband/appellant were present in particular State on the date of the occurrence, which attained finality – No reason, why the High Court has taken the view that accused appellant was in that State on the date of occurrence needed to be proved in the course of the trial – High Court, ought to have discharged the accused/appellant – Appeal allowed, order of the High Court set aside -- Appellant ordered to be discharged.

(Para 3-6)

ORDER

1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The accused appellant – Veer Singh Verma is aggrieved by the refusal of the courts below to discharge him of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The basis on which discharge was sought is that in the separate trial against the accused appellant’s wife Munni Devi, the learned trial Court had recorded categorical findings that Munni Devi along with the present appellant, on the date of the occurrence, were in Assam. This was on the basis of the evidence of D.Ws. 10, 11, 12 and 16.

5. We have read and considered the findings of the learned trial Court in the judgment by which the wife of the accused appellant (i.e. Munni Devi) has been acquitted. In the said judgment, categorical findings have been recorded that Munni Devi along with her husband Veer Singh Verma i.e. present appellant were in Assam on the date of the occurrence.

6. Acquittal of Munni Devi has attained finality. If that is so, we do not see why the High Court has taken the view that the said fact i.e. that the accused appellant was in Assam on the date of occurrence needed to be proved in the course of the trial. On the basis of the judgment passed in the case of the wife of the appellant herein, the High Court, in our considered view, ought to have discharged the accused appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court and order for the discharge of the appellant herein in case Crime No.247/2005 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered with P.S. Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar.

7. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Appeal allowed.

********

www.lawtodaylive.com