Point of law: Demand of Dowry – Acquittal - Procedure has been described to be a handmaid and not a mistress of law, intended to subserve and facilitate the cause of justice and not to govern or obstruct it. Like all rules of procedure, this rule demand a construction which would promote this cause

JUDGMENT :

Gaurav Kakkar, Samit Gopal, J.

1. Heard Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The trial court record was summoned which has been received on 11.01.2018, as per the office report. The same has also been perused.

3. The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 68 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Mahboob and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rabpura District Gautam Budh Nagar (concerning Case Crime No. 101 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rabpura, District Gautam Budh Nagar), whereby, the revisionists have been convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A I.P.C. to 2 years simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine to one month simple imprisonment, under Section 323 I.P.C. to 06 months simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine to one week simple imprisonment, under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act to 1 year simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine to one month simple imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The accused persons have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. vide the same judgment also against the judgement and order dated 24.05.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2015 (Mahboob and Others Vs. State of U.P.) by which the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A I.P.C. to 2 years simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine to one month simple imprisonment, under Section 323 I.P.C. to 06 months simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine to one week simple imprisonment, under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act to 1 year simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine to one month simple imprisonment.

4. The issue in the present matter raised is on a very small compass. The Opposite Party No.2 / Kallu Khan is the first informant of the present matter. As per the first information report lodged by the opposite party No.2, his daughters namely Meena and Gulshan were married on 07.05.2006 to Mahboob and Shahid respectively, who are real brothers and in the marriage he had spent money and given gifts and dowry as per his status. Out of the wedlock of Mahboob and Smt. Meena, a girl child named Heena was born and from the wedlock of Shahid and Smt. Gulshan, a boy named Kauki was born. They were living peacefully. Later on, when it came to be known that the land of the first informant is being acquired, the in-laws of his daughters started troubling them and started beating them and used to demand of Rs. 5 lakhs each and a plot each for both the husbands and stated that the same be given or else they will not be permitted to live in the house. There used to be regular beating of the daughters of the first informant who continued to face the same due to social fears and used to console their in-laws but they did not mend their ways. On 17.11.2010, both the daughters of the first informant were assaulted and were left at a crossing at Rabpura from where they with great difficulty reached their maternal house and while crying and narrated the entire incident to her father on which many people of the society were called and with the help of them tried to settle the dispute in their matrimonial house but their in-laws did not accept the same and continued to press their demand and said that till the time money and plot is not given they will not keep his d