Ladha Vs. Karsan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
dowry prohibition act - section 4 and criminal procedure code--appeal against acquittal--no marriage between parties--independent witnesses available but not produced--evidence properly appreciated by court--held, no interference with order of acquittal is called for.;the learned magistrate after appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that there are several contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has, also, failed to produce independent witnesses, which were available in the case and from the bare reading of the evidence of these witnesses, produced by the prosecution, even the marriage of karsan with rashmi (daughter of ladha) has not been proved and when the marriage itself has not been proved, there was no question of demanding any dowry.;the order does not require any interference as the order acquitting the accused was passed after proper appreciation of the evidence.;appeal dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the learned magistrate after appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that there are several contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has, also, failed to produce independent witnesses, which were available in the case and from the bare reading of the evidence of these witnesses, produced by the prosecution, even the marriage of karsan with rashmi (daughter of ladha) has not been proved and when the marriage itself has not been proved, there was no question of demanding any dowry.b.r. arora, j.1. this criminal special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated march 31,1990, passed by the learned munsif and judicial magistrate, first class, senchore, by which the learned magistrate acqitted accused karsan of the offence under section 4 of the dowry prohibition act.2. accused karsan was tried by the learned munsif and judicial magistrate, first class, sanchore, for the offence under section 4 of the dowry prohibition act. the prosecution, in suopport of its case, examined pw1 ladha, pw 2 prahlad, pw 3 misra, pw 4, khushal, pw 5 lala, pw 6 surja ram, pw 7 doongra, pw 8 teja ram and pw 9 reshmi. the accused was examined under section 313 cr.p.c. and he, also, produced dw1 dhoora in defence. the learned magistrate after appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that there are several contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has, also, failed to produce independent witnesses, which were available in the case and from the bare reading of the evidence of these witnesses, produced by the prosecution, even the marriage of karsan with rashmi (daughter of ladha) has not been proved and when the marriage itself has not been proved, there was no question of demanding any dowry.3. i have perused the order passed by the learned lower court and the learned lower court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has arrived-at rightful conclusion. the order does not require any interference as the order acquitting the accused was passed after proper appreciation of the evidence.4. in the result, this leave to appeal has got no force and is hereby dismissed. the leave prayed-for is refused.