Bhoondey Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

- 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].....petitioner has filed this petition under article 227 of constitution of india with a prayer that this court should give directions to the respondent/union of india (land acquisition collector) to dispose of application of the petitioner filed under section 28-a of land acquisition act.2. as per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner made an application under section 28-a of land acquisition act on 8th july, 1987 vide diary no. 639. his contention is that this application was not decided and he filed c.m. (m) no. 544 of 1999. this petition was dismissed in default on 9th september, 2003. he made an application for restoration which was not pressed by him on the ground that the cause of action for filing a fresh petition was still available with him. the application for restoration was dismissed on 4th december, 2007 therefore, he has filed the present petition.3. i consider that the present petition is a gross misuse of judicial process. neither land acquisition collector nor union of india is a court/tribunal sub-ordinate to high court where high court can exercise its supervisory power under article 227. the petition is misconceived. secondly, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. the petitioner allegedly filed his application in the year 1987. till year 1999, he kept on sleeping and thereafter, he filed a c.m. (m) i.e. a petition under article 227, which he did not prosecute.4. a division bench of this court in om prakash v. union of india : 2006 (132) dlt 677 in a writ petition under article 226 being w.p. (c) no. 7292 of 2003 observed that where there was no explanation at all anywhere as to what the petitioner was doing for such a long time, the writ petition has to be held barred by latches. in om prakash's case (supra), the petitioner approached the court after period of 8 1/2 years. in the present case, the petitioner has approached the court initially after more than 12 years and the present petition has.....