NAVIN SINHA, R. SUBHASH REDDY
Pramila – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the married sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased, and aggrieved by her conviction under Section 302, 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act sentencing her for life with a default stipulation.
3. The deceased died in the matrimonial home on 16.07.2008 in about one and a half years of the marriage suffering 95% burn injuries. PW-2, the younger brother of deceased aged about 11 to 12 years is the sole eye witness.
4. Shri Tripurari Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that she had taken a specific defence in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she resided in her matrimonial home, which was separate and at a distance. The appellant, according to PW-2, is stated to have stuffed cloth in the mouth of the deceased after which she was set on fire by other accused. This crucial allegation was never put to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC thus depriving her of a valuable opportunity of defence which vitiates her conviction. It is next submitted that PW-2 is not a reliable eye-witness inviting attention to certain contradictions in his evidence. In addition, reliance has been further pl
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.