Bulandshahr
Example: If the advocate pleads correctly, justice can be obtained only from the lower courts
Date after date... Date after date Millard, this dialogue from the film Damini tells the reality of pending cases in the courts even today. Often the news of pending cases in the courts makes headlines in which it is told that not only years but decades pass in the cases from lower to higher courts and half the life of the plaintiff is spent in dates. But recently the decision of a case related to dowry murder in the lower court of Bulandshahr has proved that if the lawyer presents the case in the court in the right manner then the victims can get justice quickly. Something similar happened in this case as well. Due to the wisdom of the Supreme Court advocate, not only the victim who was in jail was released, but the court also issued an order of action against the other party for filing a false report.
Additional Sessions Judge Sudhir Kumar of the Fast Track Court of District and Sessions Court of Bulandshahr district, while giving the verdict after hearing and seeing the evidence and witnesses in a case of dowry act, accepted that the wife had committed suicide. The court ordered the release of the husband who was in jail in this case and filing a case against the father of the deceased for filing a false report. The people of the in-laws' side, who were going through a phase of mental harassment for the last two and a quarter years, got this justice from the lower court by Supreme Court advocate Dev Datt Arya. Due to the deep understanding of the advocate and presenting the case like a mirror before the court, this judicial process could be completed in a very short period. If we look at the whole case, then Jaiprakash, living in Surjawali village of Aurangabad police station of Bulandshahr, had married his daughter Sarvesh to Bhupendra, resident of Ahmedpur village of Kotwali Dehat, on 2 February 2013, according to the customs. On 22 April 2015, middleman Tejveer informed Sarvesh's family that their daughter had been strangled to death for dowry. On the complaint of Jaiprakash, the police registered a case of dowry murder against deceased Sarvesh's husband Bhupendra as well as father-in-law Vijaypal and mother-in-law Kamlesh. The police arrested Bhupendra in this case and sent him to jail.
On the other hand, the people from the in-laws' side kept saying repeatedly that they are innocent and Sarvesh had committed suicide in the house in their absence. In this entire case, the defense lawyer is Supreme Court lawyer Deva Datt Arya was the one who studied the entire case in detail and based it on the decisions of the higher courts in cases of dowry act. Even though this case was going on in the lower court, Supreme Court lawyer DD Arya prepared the ground report of the case in this way so that this case could reach its conclusion in this court. On the basis of the evidence presented and the statements of the witnesses, the court concluded that Jayaprakash had initially given wrong information to the police under the influence of others. It was also proved that Sarvesh's in-laws live in another house in the village and at the time when Sarvesh committed suicide, Bhupendra was not at home. Supreme Court advocate D. D. Arya proved in the court that the case of dowry act and murder was baseless. No pressure was exerted for dowry from the in-laws' side. The deceased Sarvesh was educated while her husband Bhupendra was illiterate, due to which Sarvesh was under stress.
She used to live in. When she committed suicide, those who had enmity with her in-laws took advantage of this and hatched a conspiracy to implicate her in litigation.
However, the efforts of Supreme Court lawyer DD Arya paid off and on 18 April 2017, the judge ordered in this case that accused Bhupendra is acquitted of Section 498A, 304B and the charge framed in the alternative under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Vijaypal and Mrs. Kamlesh are acquitted of Section 498A, 302 read with Section 34 and the charge framed in the alternative under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused Bhupendra, Vijaypal and Mrs. Kamlesh are imprisoned in the District Jail Bulandshahr in this case. The Superintendent of District Jail Bulandshahr should be sent an order for the release of the accused that if the accused are not wanted in any other case, they should be released immediately. At the same time, the First Information Report has been lodged by Jaiprakash against the accused on the basis of false statements, hence the case should be registered against the plaintiff Jaiprakash under Section 344 Cr. P.C.
After this decision, the in-laws' trust in the law and order has increased, while the advocacy of Supreme Court advocate DD Arya has become an example that if the lawyers present the facts in the right manner, then the cases under serious sections can be settled at the very beginning. For this, the plaintiffs and the defendants will not need to knock the doors of the higher courts.
-Ganga Mahima September 2017"
No comments:
Post a Comment