State Of U.P. vs Smt. Reena Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 1992 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 328 of 2021
 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Reena Devi
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

1. The instant Government Appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 13.01.2021, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No.-1, Kasganj in S.T. No.154 of 2013 (State Vs. Smt. Reena Devi), arising out of Crime No.972/2012, under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent Smt. Reena Devi from the charge under Sections 302/34 IPC.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that, the complainant Brahmanand lodged an F.I.R. in Police Station Kasganj, that on 10.12.2012 at about 11.00 P.M. his son Harendra Kumar was present in his room along with his wife Reena Devi. Informant was in lower portion of his house. All of sudden he heard the sound of one fire from his room. Immediately, he rushed towards the room of Harendra Kumar. He saw that room of his son was locked from outside and his daughter-in-law was standing outside the room. Somebody asked Reena (daughter-in-law of the informant) to open the lock, otherwise he would shoot himself as well. Even the door was not opened. Immediately, the informant heard the sound of second fire from inside the room. He called the neighbours and informed the police. When the door of room was opened, he found that his son Harendra Kumar and one another unknown person was lying dead. That unknown person was known by his daughter-in-law Reena Devi. Informant also created doubt that his daughter-in-law was in extra marital relations with that unknown person and due to the said reason they had killed his son. One country made pistol of 315 bore along with cartridge was also lying near the dead body.

3. On the basis of above Tehrir/written complaint a case under Section 302 IPC was registered vide Crime No.972/2012 at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj. The investigation of the occurrence was entrusted to S.H.O. Jitendra Singh, who, after investigation of the case, submitted charge sheet against accused-respondent Reena Devi under Section 302/34 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate, where the accused-respondent Reena Devi was charged for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. She denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, complainant/informant Brahmanand as PW 1, Upendra as PW 2, Dharmendra as PW 3, Hori Lal as as PW 4, S.H.O. Jitendra Singh as PW 5, Dr. Pavan Kumar as PW 6, H.C. 357 Prem Prakash as PW 7, Smt. Sushma Devi as PW 8, Dr. Aryendra Yadav as PW 9 gave their evidence. Witness Maan Singh was examined as CW 1.

5. After concluding the evidence of prosecution, statement of accused-respondent Reend Devi was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused-respondent pleaded innocence, denied her any role in offence and submitted that unknown person was not her lover. She was not involved in committing the offence. The witnesses had given false evidence against her.

6. Learned trial court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides and after considering the record of the case, acquitted the accused/respondent Reena Devi with the finding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of learned trial court has been challenged by the State of U.P. by way of present appeal.

7. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the prosecution had succeeded to establish its case against the accused-respondent. Judgement of the trial court is against the provisions of law and evidence on record. The trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly. The finding recorded by the trial court is perverse. The judgment of the trial court is based on surmises and conjecture. The trial court wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges. Hence, the application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

8. The record indicates that the witnesses of fact, Brahmanand, Upendra and Dharmendra had been examined as PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. It has been shown that they were present immediately after commission of the offence. The occurrence of fire took place inside the locked room. All the witnesses had stated that they had heard that somebody from inside the room was saying to open the door but certainly it was not the voice of deceased Harendra, rather all the witnesses had stated in their evidence that unknown person, whose name was declared as Umesh Chandra Verma said Reena Devi to open the lock and gate, otherwise he will shoot himself. The above part of the evidence throws light that room was locked from outside. Inside the room, firstly Umesh Chandra Verma fired on Harendra, then, after that, he committed suicide himself by firearm. No evidence has been produced to show any collusion between Reena Devi and Umesh Chandra Verma to commit the offence. Therefore, learned trial court rightly concluded that prosecution was failed to prove the guilt of respondent-Reena Devi beyond any doubt. Consequently, the court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the charge of offence. The judgment and order of the trial court is in accordance with law and with proper reasoning. The view taken by the trial court is probable and in accordance with law.

9. The appellate court has full power to review and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded and appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by trial court.

10. A criminal trial proceeds with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons. With the acquittal of the accused persons, this presumption of innocence stands fortified. So, very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of acquittal.

11. The impugned judgment has to be considered from the point of view whether the conclusion drawn by the trial court was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits. The judgment of lower court is well discussed and based on evidence available on record. No illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned judgment.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid failure of the prosecution to prove its case against accused, consequently the finding of acquittal of accused, as noted by the trial court, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court was a probable and logical view with proper reasoning. The judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable and there seems absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and, accordingly, no interference is called for. Hence, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is refused and the application is hereby rejected.

13. Since the prayer for leave to appeal has been refused, the memorandum of appeal also stands rejected.

14. Lower court record, if received, be returned along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court.

Order Date :- 5.5.2022

ML