Ramesh Chandra Mamgai vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2014 Latest Caselaw 2207 Del

SPLA 17/2014
In
CRLA 37/2014
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Mr. R.K. Shah, Dy. Adv. General (Cri.) for the State/applicant/appellant.

This appeal has been filed with a delay of 226 days wherefor no plausible explanation has been given by way of either ground, as deposed in the affidavit.

Otherwise also, on the merits of the case, I have gone through the impugned judgment.

It transpires that there is no consistency in the statements of PW1 (victim/bride) and her two neighbouring witness of the native place. Victim states that she is residing since 2007 in her parents' house while the dowry was demanded from her on 25.2.2008. It is difficult to understand that if the husband has not demanded any dowry during her living in the matrimonial house, then how the same could have been demanded after more than one year when she was living with her parents.

So, on view of what has been stated above, I feel that there is no force in this appeal on both scores. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is rejected. With the result, special leave to appeal application and the Appeal are dismissed.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) Rdang 01.05.2014