LI Network
Published on: 29 August 2023 at 12:33 IST
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition pertaining to charges of dowry death and related offenses.
Presided over by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, the court upheld the charges that were initially laid against the accused individual, Dev Narain.
The court rejected the plea to amend the charges, as requested in the revision application.
The case revolves around the tragic demise of Rashmi, who was wedded to Kamal Kishore, also known as Satyanarayan, on February 22, 2016.
The allegations suggest that Rashmi’s spouse and his family had demanded an increased dowry, resulting in cruelty against her. The incident came to light when Rashmi’s brother, Vibhuti Bhushan Garg, discovered her lifeless body within her residence, alongside her husband’s deceased body near a railway track.
In the course of the revision process, Dev Narain, the deceased’s brother-in-law, sought the modification of charges under Sections 498-A (pertaining to cruelty towards a wife), 304-B (addressing dowry death), 323 (relating to causing voluntary hurt), and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The application argued that the charges leveled against him lacked substantiating evidence and thus should lead to his discharge.
The court’s ruling was established through thorough evaluation of the evidence presented and legal arguments put forth by both sides.
Justice Mishra highlighted that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory grounds for the alteration of charges, underscoring that the authority to modify or include charges was solely vested in the court.
Justice Mishra drew attention to the established legal precedent, reiterating that parties did not inherently possess the right to seek changes or additions to charges. Such alterations could only be carried out by the court in accordance with Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the written judgment, reference was made to a previous case (P. Kartikalakshmi vs Sri Ganesh and another), reinforcing the court’s exclusive jurisdiction to make necessary amendments to charges.
Furthermore, the case of Vibhuti Narayan Chaubey Alias V. State of U.P. was invoked, stressing that Section 216 of the Code did not allow for the deletion of charges.
In its final decision, the court concluded that there was no breach of legality or irregularity in the charges framed against Dev Narain, thereby dismissing the revision application.
Case Title: Dev Narain Vs State of U.P. and Another
