Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Hardesh on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 190 of 2021
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Hardesh
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. on an application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. for granting of leave to appeal.
This appeal has been filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1010 of 2016 (State Vs. Hardesh), under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned A.G.A. in support of the appeal submits that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and it is against the weight of evidence on record. Learned trial court has erroneously passed the impugned order while discarding the prosecution evidence but based on its finding on the suicide note written by the deceased and also the opinion of the handwriting expert. Learned trial court has not given importance to the testimony of P.W. 2 Dushyant who has supported the prosecution story. The incident took place within the house of accused and death was caused by burn which was result of harassment on the part of the accused. There was no other reason to commit suicide by the deceased in her in-laws house (sasural) but learned trial court has not considered all these facts and passed the judgment against law which is perverse and deserves to be set aside.
In this case, deceased Rashmi was wedded to accused Hardesh prior to 13 years from the occurrence. On 31.10.2015 information was given to nephew of informant that deceased was admitted in Government Hospital, Muzaffar Nagar when informant with his nephew reached there, he saw his daughter Rashmi burnt, thereafter she died. In this regard, F.I.R. was lodged by informant, father of deceased, at police station under Section 306 IPC. During trial, informant Jai Prakash was examined before the court as P.W.1 but he did not support the prosecution version during his cross-examination. He admitted that his daughter never complaind of harassment by her husband and inmates before her death. He further stated that he did not tell the Investigating Officer about instigation to commit suicide by the accused Hardesh. Likewise, P.W. 2 Dushyant who is nephew of informant has supported the prosecution version in his examination-in-chief. During cross-examination he had admitted that deceased did not committed suicide as a result of harassment by her husband and inmates. Place of occurrence is a room which was bolted from inside where deceased got burnt. The door of her room was opened by the people of village by using force. A suicide note was also found on the place of occurrence which was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer and it was got compared with the handwriting of deceased by handwriting expert who opined it to be written in the handwriting of deceased. In that suicide note, it was mentioned that "she is committing suicide owing to her illness. There was no fault of her in-laws." Signature was affixed under the above note.
From the perusal of judgment, it transpires that learned trial court has taken into consideration the fact of marriage prior to 13 years of occurrence, testimony of P.W.1, father of deceased and P.W.2 cousin of deceased. During cross-examination, both of them have not made statements about the fact of harassment by the husband or in-laws of the deceased. Occurrence took place in a room bolted from inside which was broken open by the villagers. It cannot be said that deceased was set ablaze by her in-laws. P.W.1 is father of deceased who can be said to be well known about the condition of his daughter in the house of her in-laws. He has expressly admitted that his daughter never complaind of harassment or instigation to commit suicide on the part of her husband or in-laws. This witness cannot be said to be unreliable. Likewise, P.W. 2 who is cousin of deceased has also admitted that deceased has not committed suicide, as a result of harassment from her husband-Hardesh or her in-laws. Inspit of this suicide note which was in handwriting of deceased was also compared with the handwriting of deceased Rashmi. Handwriting expert has also been examined who has proved the suicide note is in the handwriting of deceased. This suicide note can also not be said to be unreliable. As per suicide note, deceased committed suicide owing to her illness and not on the ground of harassment from her husband or in-laws. No other evidence is on record to indicate the complicity of accused in making abetement to commit suicide.
In this way, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances enumerated above, this court is of the view that the trial court has passed the judgment and order for acquittal of the respondent regarding which it cannot be said that the view taken by the court below is not possible and plausible.
Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the learned trial court and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by the court below is a perverse view.
The learned trial court has given cogent and convicting reasons for acquitting the accused respondent, therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the appellant.
The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021
A. Singh
