Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ashok Bajpayee S/O Late ... on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 85 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ashok Bajpayee S/O Late G.S.Bajpayee And 03 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present government appeal has been filed along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgement and order dated 18.09.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 520 of 2011 (State Vs. Ashok Bajpayee and others) arising out of crime no. 767 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby accused-respondents were acquitted.
It is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order are illegal and perverse. P.W.-1 Chunuvad Shukla, father of the deceased, P.W.-2 Rama Shankar Shukla, brother of the deceased, C.W.-1 Gulab Devi, mother of the deceased have supported the prosecution case. Accused respondents were repeatedly and consistently raising additional demand of dowry from the deceased and were causing cruelty and harassment in lieu of the said demand. Death of the deceased is unnatural within seven years of her marriage. Thus all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304 -B IPC are available in the present matter. Trial Court misreading the prosecution evidence reached on the wrong conclusion. To substantiate this argument learned A.G.A. referred to the finding arrived at by the Trial Court and further argued that Trial Court illegally placed reliance on the dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased. Cause of death was burn injuries. She died during treatment in the hospital. Thus, prayer was made to grant leave to appeal.
We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned AGA.
In this matter, as is evident from record, there are two type of evidence. Firstly, statement of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and C.W.-1 in the form of oral statement. They have stated that accused respondents were raising additional demand of dowry and were causing cruelty and harassment to the deceased in lieu of the said demand of dowry. There is another evidence in the form of dying declaration. Deceased was under treatment. Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded after certification/verification of the Doctor concerned about the physical/mental condition of the deceased. If the dying declaration said tohave been made in the matter is taken into consideration then it will be clear that the deceased has stated in her statement that she caught fire when she was lighting the lantern and due to that reason she sustained burn injuries. She has also stated that at no point of time accused respondents were raising any sort of demand of additional dowry nor they caused any cruelty or harassment in lieu of the said demand. If the findings arrived at by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are minutely analysed it is clear that death of the deceased took place within seven years of her marriage and in oral statement P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and C.W.-1 have stated that accused respondents were raising additional demand of dowry in lieu of said demand but in dying declaration nothing was stated by the deceased to support the statement of P.W.-1, P.W-2 and C.W.-1. If such is the position, finding arrived at by the Trial Court is in accordance with the facts and evidence. Order of acquittal of the accused respondents cannot be termed to be illegal or perverse. Impugned judgment and order was passed by the Trial Court after analysing entire evidence. It is a well discussed and reasoned order.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315 has held as under :
"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."
Further, in Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 298, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
If the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are minutely analysed with the facts, evidence and settled principle of law, no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in it. View taken by the trial court is also a possible view. No interference in the judgment and order of the trial court is called for. Hence, prayer made in the application moved by the appellant - State of U.P. to grant leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected.
Since the application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2022
Sachdeva
