State Of U.P. vs Chandrabhan @ Chandu And 3 Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 9907 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 149 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Chandrabhan @ Chandu And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC instituted by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 2.7.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No.149 of 2014, State of U.P. vs. Chandrabhan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Garaudha, District Jhansi.

2. Briefly stated facts so unfolded from the prosecution story are that the first informant Nathu Ram Lodhi son of Late Narain Das Lodhi resident of village Pawa, P.S. Srinagar, District Mahoba had submitted a written report with the allegation that his daughter Pramila's marriage got solemnized with Ashok Lodhi son of Lallu Lodhi in the year 2010. However, despite the fact that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals, but a dowry demand of Rs.3 lakhs was sought to be made. Prosecution further alleges that though gifts and offerings were made available to the inlaws of her deceased daughter, but a demand of Rs.25,000/- and a two-wheeler was raised from time to time. Even, in fact, Panchayat was also called, settlement was acceded and the daughter went back to her matrimonial house. However, the treatment remained the same. It is further alleged that on 27.6.2010 and about 6:00 in the evening, a phone call was received by the first informant from a nearby neighbour of the same village that his daughter was administered poison and was also beaten. Consequently, faced with these circumstances, the first informant along with his relatives proceeded to the matrimonial house of his daughter and reached there at 12:00 in the night and when he inquired about the whereabouts of his daughter, then he was apprised that his daughter is admitted in Medical College, Jhansi and the first informant thereafter made certain queries, which were replied in abuses and threat while uttering the sentences that as the demand of the dowry was not made satisfied so she has to face the music. Accordingly, the complainant fraction proceeded to Medical College, Jhansi, wherein they found the dead body of Pramila in the mortuary. Though the written complaint was submitted, but FIR was not lodged as stated by the prosecution, but it was lodged on 13.8.2010 at 16:10 hours under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. PW-5 being M.L. Vimal was nominated as Investigating Officer. He claims to have prepared the panchayatnama, recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses as well as conducted all the proceedings as required therein and submitted the charge sheet under the above noted sections. The case was committed to Sessions, charges were read over to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The learned Trial Court by virtue of judgment under challenge acquitted the accused.

4. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, now the State is before this Court under the proceedings under Section 378(3) CrPC.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home charges, examined the following witnesses: PW-1 Nathu Ram, PW-2 Man Singh, PW-3 Ram Pratap Mishra, PW-4 Dr. D.K. Yadav and PW-5 C.O. M.L. Vimal.

6. The defence also produced their witnesses namely DW-1 Ramesh Chand and DW-2 Dashrath Prasad.

7. This Court is oblivious of the fact that present proceedings is emanating from the judgement and order of acquittal. To put it otherwise, the present appeal has been filed by the first informant whereby he seeks judicial intervention for reversing the judgement of acquittal into conviction. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the line of the decisions right from the very inception has been consistently mandating that in the proceedings challenging the judgement of acquittal, appellate courts should be slow in interfering as double presumption of innocence is tagged with the accused and until and unless the order so passed by the trial court is perverse or straight away points towards a wrong direction emanating complete miscarriage of justice and further misreading of the evidence and there are substantive and compelling grounds for setting aside the judgement of acquittal. The courts should, normally and in routine manner, not interfere particularly when the view taken by the learned trial Court is plausible and possible view. Needless to point out, even the appellate Courts should be slow in interfering where another view is possible.

8. Bearing in mind the proposition of law so culled out by Hon'ble Apex Court, now the present case is to be addressed.

9. We have heard Sri Kailash Prasad Pathak, the learned A.G.A, who appeared for the State-appellant.

10. To begin with the ocular testimony of the witnesses needs to be at least noticed.

11. One Nathu Ram appeared as PW-1 being the first informant and the father of the deceased daughter.

12. According to him, the deceased got married with Ashok on 27.5.2006 according to Hindu rites and rituals and he had offered gifts and cash totalling to Rs.3 lakhs, however, the same was found not to be commensurate to the expectation of the inlaws and she was not only harassed mentally, but also administered beating and even Panchayat was also called and on the assurance, the deceased daughter was taken to her matrimonial house and he on 27.6.2010 received a phone call from the neighbour that his daughter has been beaten up and administered poison. He after receiving the said information at 6:00 in the evening proceeded with his relatives and reached the village at 12 in the night, wherein he made queries, so he was subjected to abuses and threatening while being apprised that as demand of dowry of inlaws is not being fulfilled, as such he has to face music and his daughter is admitted in the Government Hospital Jhansi and he straightway proceeded to Jhansi, wherein he found the dead body of the deceased daughter. Though the written complaint was submitted immediately, but FIR was lodged after a long time.

13. As PW-2 Man Singh appeared and he supported the prosecution case while narrating the fact which has been mentioned in the FIR while saying that attrocities were being inflicted upon the deceased daughter and it was a dowry death after administering poison.

14. PW-3 Ram Pratap Mishra also stepped into the witness-box and according to him he seeks to prove the lodging of the FIR.

15. PW-4 Dr. D.K. Yadav has proved the post mortem report. According to him, the deceased died due to poison though proceedings had been initiated for getting Viscera Report and there was no external injuries found on the body of the deceased.

16. As PW-5, Investigating Officer M.L. Vimal, C.O. proved the proceedings culminating into charge sheet while preparing the site plan, panchayatnama, recording the statements etc.

17. DW-1 Ramesh Chand appeared in order to support the version of the defence while coming up with a stand that the deceased was mentally challenged to such an extent that she had neurological problems and she was also subjected to local medication including visits to Babas for eliminating the effect of ghosts. DW-1 has also come up with stand that she ran away being out of senses from her matrimonial house to her maternal house and when she used to get something in the vicinity of her eyes, she used to pick and eat and she had died while eating pesticides, which was kept for the purposes of killing wheat worms. DW-1 also stated that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with her husband in a community marriage ceremony and there was no dowry either given or accepted.

18. DW-2 Dashrath Prasad has also supported the case of the defence while coming up with a stand that the deceased was suffering with mental problem. She died due to eating pesticides and there was no dowry either given or taken, as the marriage was solemnized in community marriage ceremony.

19. Sri Kailash Prasad Pathak, the learned A.G.A, has urged that the judgment of acquittal is superficial, as it does not take into account the prosecution case which in fact gets support from the prosecution witnesses, as the present case stands proved to be a dowry death. Merely because the deceased was having weak brain cannot partake the character of a situation, wherein whereat murder has not taken place.

20. We have heard the learned A.G.A. at length and thoroughly scanned the records and found that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court does not necessitate any interference by us. Though PW-1 who happens to be the father of the deceased and the first informant has come up with a stand that the dowry was being demanded and same became the basis for commission of crime, but it is not disputed by him and rather admitted by him that the marriage took place in a community marriage ceremony, wherein he was not present. However, the relatives were present. He has in fact admitted in his cross-examination that Ashok, who happens to be the husband was living all alone with the deceased. Apart from the same, the marriage took place in the community marriage ceremony, which was organized by its Chairman Anil Singh and Secretary Arvind Kumar, Advocate and thus merely by making bald and vague allegations regarding demand of dowry does not in any manner whatsoever prove the same. Further, there is nothing on record to substantiate that any complaint, whatsoever, was made regarding demand of dowry at any stage. Less to say that even no document has been brought on record before the court below, nor any independent witness had stepped into the witness box so as to suggest that dowry was being sought to be demanded. Rather to the contrary, DW-1 and DW-2 themselves have come up with a stand that no dowry was being demanded or given and no harassment or beating was administered to the deceased as DW-1 happens to be the next-door neighbour, who obviously will not have any interest in normal circumstances.

21. So far as the mental state of the deceased is concerned, it has come on record by virtue of the statements of DW-1 and DW-2 being the next-door neighbour and other being independent witness that the deceased had a weak brain and she was suffering to mental problem and she used to run from her matrimonial house to her maternal place and she was witnessed to be eating something lying on the floor or even otherwise, was not liable to be eaten without being realizing that said item may be fatal also.

22. Apart from the same, it has come on record that the article which was eaten by the deceased was nothing, but aluminium phosphate, as the same was corroborated to be the said substance by PW-4 Dr. D.K. Yadav. Moreso, PW-5 I.O. has himself in his cross-examination stated that a final report was submitted in favour of the accused. However, on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, the proceedings were again initiated, which culminated into submission of the charge sheet. He in his cross-examination has also stated that the deceased got married with Ashok in Rajpoot Marriage Assembly, Rath and no dowry was being given or taken.

23. Cumulatively, analyzing the present case from four-corners of law, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has not committed any manifest error in acquitting the accused, particularly, in view of the fact that nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the fact that the learned Trial Court has committed perversity which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice.

24. This Court further finds that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is a possible view and there is no justification in adopting any other view. The considerations, which weighed the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused itself are based on the ocular testimony and the evidence so adduced in support thereof and in absence of any perversity so committed by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds its inability to hold the judgment as perverse.

25. Hence, in any view of the matter applying the principles of law so culled out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts of the present case, we have no option but to concur with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge.

26. We find that it is not a case worth granting leave to appeal. The application for granting leave to appeal is rejected.

27. Since the leave to file the appeal has not been granted, consequently, present government appeal also stands dismissed.

28. Records of the present case be sent back to the concerned court below.

(Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Vivek Kumar Birla,J.)

Order Date :- 11.8.2022

N.S.Rathour