Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 5 December, 2014
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Dinesh Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 4649 of 2014
Appellant :- Akhilesh Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Kshitij Shailendra,Harpreet Singh Bedi,Virendra Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta,J.
( By Hon. Rakesh Tiwari,J.)
Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the appellant and A.G.A. appearing for respondent-State.
This criminal appeal under section 372,Cr.P.C. challenges the judgment and order dated 30.8.2014 rendered by District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge(S.C./S.T. Act), Chandauli in Session Trial No. 2 of 2010, State Vs. Awadhesh Gupta and others, arising out of case crime no. 103 of 2009, U/s 498-A,304-B IPC and ¾, Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sayad Raza, district Chandauli.
In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that marriage of Sangita, sister of the informant, was solemnized with accused Ajeet alias Pappu on 22.2.2004. She is alleged to have been murdered on 18.4.2009 by her husband and in laws' in suspicious circumstances for dowry.
After appreciation of evidence on record, the trial court by the impugned judgment in S.T. No. 98 of 2009, has convicted and sentenced accused-husband Ajeet alias Pappu for a terms of seven years and fine but has acquitted co accused persons namely Awadhesh Gupta, Jai Prakash Gupta, brothers of husband Ajeet, his wife Manju Devi and Sampatti Devi-mother-in-law of deceased Sangita in connected S.T. No. 2 of 2010.
Judgment of the trial court is assailed by the counsel for appellant saying that acquittal of the in-laws is per se illegal and based upon misreading of oral and documentary evidence on record; that once the trial court has convicted husband-Ajeet alias Pappu in S.T. No. 98 of 2009, which was connected, there was no justification to acquit the co accused persons in S.T. No. 2 of 2010 against whom sufficient evidence was available on record; that all accused persons were residing in the same house and different addresses mentioned in some of the documents, would not lead to an inference about their actual separate residence from the residence of accused Ajeet merely on basis of their separate and independent working and their involvement would depend upon the manner in which the offence was committed, and as such dowry death is caused by all the accused persons jointly within seven years of the marriage between the deceased and Ajeet alias Pappu- her husband.
It is argued that the basis of finding of acquittal of the co accused persons was their alleged separate residence and working which is against the weight of oral and documentary evidence on record. The finding recorded by the court below that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the co accused persons beyond doubt is not supported by materials on record particularly when record demonstrates that all accused persons had harassed and tortured Sangita for dowry immediately preceding which is attributable to all the accused persons jointly for causing her dowry death.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that trial court after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to conclusion that co accused persons were living separately and had no nexus with dowry or dowry death of Sangita in the house of the accused. The findings so recorded by the trial court are in consonance with oral and documentary evidence on record.
After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that judgment impugned rendered by the Sessions court is based on sound reasonings and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Accused Ajeet alias Pappu, with whom Sangita was married, has been found guilty and he has been convicted and sentenced under sections 498-A,304-B IPC and ¾,Dowry Prohibition Act. So far as other co accused are concerned, it is established from record that the prosecution failed to establish their participation in the offence as from the evidence of prosecution witnesses it is not proved that any of the co acccused who have been acquitted, demanded dowry either before or after the marriage. The evidence for demand of dowry has been stated for the first time in the statement of prosecution witness which is a new turn to the story towards dowry death of Sangita and there is material contradictions in this regard. The demand of dowry is said to have been made on 16.4.2009 on mobile phone. There is no proof of dowry demand having been made except the aforesaid statement. Even if the statement of dowry demand having been made on 16.4.2009 telephonically is accepted for argument sake, even if the statement of P.W.2 that Sangita (since deceased) had informed her mother telephonically on 16.4.2009 at about 8 p.m. regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/- and her harassment as well as threat to her life, it does not stand to reason why no FIR was lodged by her family members against the accused and co accused persons. It rather appears that on receiving information on 18.4.2009 about the death of his sister, P.W.1 Akhilesh Gupta went to the house of accused Ajeet alias Pappu and found that all the accused had run away and that he believes that Ajeet alias Pappu, Sampatti Devi, Jai Prakash , Awadhesh etc. have murdered his sister Sangita for dowry.
The court below has arrived to a finding of fact on basis of record that all the other co accused persons were living separately from accused Ajeet for the last about 7-8 years. There are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and no proof that any harassment or dowry demand was made by the co accused persons who have been acquitted, from the family of deceased Sangita. Evidence regarding telephonic conversation before the death of Sangita cannot be said to firmly establish that any dowry demand was made by the co accused persons particularly when they have been implicated on basis of belief only without there being any proof of their actual involvement in committing of the offence.
In the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence on record, the trial court appears to have rightly acquitted the co accused persons. In our view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned. It is accordingly affirmed.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.12.2014
SNT/
