Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Brijesh Kumar And 6 Others on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 532 of 2021
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Counsel for Respondent :- Vinod Kumar
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Order on Application for Leave to Appeal
Heard Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the accused-respondents.
The present Government Appeal has been filed for challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the accused-respondents dated 05.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Special Court No. 2, Bareilly passed in Session Trial No. 618 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Brijesh Kumar and other) connected with the Sessions Trial No. 774 of 2016 (Naresh Arya and another).
We find that one Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 152/2018 (Bhimsen Vs. Saroj Arya and 4 Others) has already been decided on merits vide judgment dated 02.05.2018.
The aforesaid judgment which quoted as under:-
"This appeal along with an application seeking leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant/first informant challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 05.2.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Special Court No. 2, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 2016 (Computer Registration No. 0000618/16) (State of U.P. Vs. Brajesh Kumar and others) and in Sessions Trial No. 774 of 2016 (Computer Registration No. 0000774/16) (State of U.P. Vs. Naresh Arya and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 322 of 2016, Police Station Baradari, district Bareilly whereby the accused-respondent nos. 1 to 4 have been acquitted under Sections 304-B, 302/34 and 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard learned learned counsel for the appellant/complainant on application seeking leave to appeal filed in this appeal. Perused the impugned judgment.
A perusal of the impugned shows that the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against the entire family including the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, two brothers in law (Jeth), married Nanad and her husband on general allegation of making demand of dowry of Rs. 3 lacs for setting up the business of the husband. The learned trial court, after a detailed discussion of evidence found the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law guilty and accordingly convicted them. However, the involvement of married nanad, her husband and two Jeths was found false. Therefore, they were acquitted. Aggrieved by their acquittal, the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal.
It is argued on behalf of the appellant that all the accused-respondents are residing in the same vicinity and Mohalla but the trial court without a proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused-respondents from the charge of alleged offence only on the ground that the accused-respondents, who are married sister-in-law, her husband (Nandoi) and brothers-in-law, are not the direct beneficiaries of the alleged demand of dowry.
A perusal of the statement of the witnesses and the evidence available on record shows that in the F.I.R. and also in the statement of witnesses there is general allegation against the entire family of demanding Rs. 3 lacs in cash as additional dowry and harassing the victim in connection thereof without assigning any specific role to any of the accused-respondents. The learned trial court, after a detailed discussion of evidence available on record, has acquitted them from the charges levelled against them.
None of the accused-respondents is a direct beneficiary of the alleged demand of cash of Rs. 3 lacs as additional dowry.
Now a days, a tendency has developed to implicate the entire family including even the married sisters-in-law (Nanads) and brothers-in-law (Jeths) in dowry related cases.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the land mark case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, A.I.R. 2013, SC, 181, has held that if the allegation as to active involvement of accused persons is absent in the F.I.R., mere casual reference to their names in the F.I.R., would not be sufficient to take cognizance against the accused persons in dowry cases.
The learned trial court in absence of any overt act or active involvement of the accused-respondents has rightly acquitted the accused respondents from the charges under Sections 498A, 304B, 302/34 of I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
We do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial court.
The view taken by the learned trial court is a possible view and the well settled legal principles is that in an appeal against acquittal even if two views are possible and the trial judge has taken one view, which is reasonable and plausible and appeals to the judicial mind, the High Court should refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal.
In Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujrat;1996 (9) SCC 225, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
".....in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocence unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is, re-enforced and strengthened by the trial court..."
In Mahadeo Laxman Sarane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 705, the Apex Court has observed that :
"It is true, that the settled legal position is that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the accused and the other against him. In such a case if the trial court takes a view in favour of the accused, the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal."
In C. Antony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1, the Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-
"Unless the findings of trial court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of the material on record."
In Sirajuddin Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 4 SCC 375, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle in the following words:-
"Where trial Court's order of acquittal is based on a reasonably possible view, High Court should not, as a rule of prudence, disturb the acquittal."
For the aforesaid reasons, there does not appear any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment.
The application seeking leave to appeal is liable to be rejected and is according rejected.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed."
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and we find that the grounds taken in the present appeal are similar in nature and no additional ground has been taken, therefore, we do not find any good ground to take a different view of the matter, accordingly, this application for grant of leave to file appeal is rejected.
Order on appeal
Since the leave to file appeal has been rejected, consequently the appeal stands dismissed.
Since this Government Appeal has been dismissed today, therefore the connected Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 2018 (Hari Ram Arya And Another Vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 1417 of 2018 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) are directed to be listed before Hon'ble Single Bench having jurisdiction over such criminal appeals.
Order Date :- 27.7.2022
Nisha
