Nutech Security Printers Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....tribunal by the order dated 9th october, 2006. the petitioner filed an application for review of the order and permission to file the written statement which has been dismissed by the claims tribunal. the petitioner also filed an application under order i rule 10 of the code of civil procedure to implead chand singh to whom the petitioner had leased out the offending vehicle but the claims tribunal also dismissed that application.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offending vehicle was validly insured at the time of the accident. however, the insurance company would be liable only if the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and there was a valid permit. the learned counsel submits that the claims tribunal also need to determine as to who was in constructive possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. the learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to place on record of the claims tribunal the material to the effect that the chand singh was the real owner as lessee in constructive possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident; the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and there was valid permit at the time of the accident.6. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the duty of the claims tribunal to conduct an inquiry under section 168 of the motor vehicles act to ascertain as to who was the real owner of the offending vehicle and whether there was a valid driving licence and valid permit at the time of the accident. the submission of the petitioner is correct.7. this petition is disposed of with a direction that the claims tribunal shall conduct an inquiry under section 168 of the motor vehicles act 1988 and shall also ascertain as to who was the real owner in constructive possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and whether there was a valid driving licence and valid permit in respect of the offending.....