Nem Singh vs State Of Up And 4 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 15796 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Nem Singh vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 7 May, 2024

Author: Rahul Chaturvedi

Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81968-DB
 
Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 196 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- Nem Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Pandey,Dhiresh Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
 

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

1. Heard Shri Ambleshwar Pandey, learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is being filed on behalf of informant Nem Singh, assailing the legality and validity of the judgement and order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Aligarh while deciding Sessions Trial No.844 of 2018 (State of U.P. vs. Umesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.396 of 2018, P.S.- Sasnigate, District ? Aligarh, whereby the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 5 were acquitted from the charges u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Long and short of the prosecution case is that the informant Nem Singh has married his two daughters Rajni and Renu with two real brothers Umesh and Sonu respectively on 11.5.2018, in which the informant according to his own capacity has spent about 8 lacs, but the in-laws were dissatisfied with the dowry given. After the marriage the daughter Rajni was in somber mood. Even after marriage, both the sisters remained at their father's place and on 6.7.2018 their in-laws have taken them from Delhi to Aligarh and during intervening night of 6/7.7.2018 around 02.30 the in-laws of Rajni informed their counterpart that Rajni is not feeling well. After hearing this news, the family members of the informant rushed to in-laws house of Rajni along with his family members. Shyodan Singh, Gendalal, Vinod and Sherpal were also reached on spot along with the informant, where they saw that the in-laws were carrying the dead body of Rajni from Medical College to their home at Avatar Nagar. On the very next date i.e. on 7.7.2018 around 14.27 hours an F.I.R. was registered about this incident against Umesh (husband), Smt. Kamlesh Devi (mother-in-law), Deshraj Singh (father-in-law), Sonu (devar) and Rinku (jeth) u/s 498A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 of D.P. Act.

4. After lodging of the F.I.R., the police have started investigation into the matter and after completion of investigation have submitted charge sheet against the aforesaid accused persons u/s 498A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 of D.P. Act, of which cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate.

5. Since the offences were cognizable by the court of session, therefore, the case was committed to the sessions court. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused persons Umesh, Smt. Kamlesh Devi, Deshraj Singh, Sonu and Rinku, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act with alternative charge u/s 302 I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the case, prosecution has produced as many as 8 prosecution witnesses, out of which three are the witnesses of fact, namely; (i) Nem Singh (first informant) as PW-1, (ii) Ravi Kumar (brother of the deceased) as P.W.-2 and (iii) Smt. Renu (sister of the deceased) as P.W.-3 and rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal witnesses. In addition to this, various documents were also produced by the prosecution to establish their case.

7. After evaluating and analyzing the entire circumstances and the material on record, the trial court has analyzed that standard norms established for assessing the circumstances have not been achieved by the prosecution. Under such circumstances, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused-opposite parties were given benefit of doubt and they have been acquitted from the charges.

8. Challenging the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the informant-appellant submits that there was cogent evidence to convict the opposite parties but the trial court has failed to appreciate their statements while passing judgment of acquittal. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is a case where judgment is perverse in nature, therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court requires serious consideration and reversal and the accused-opposite parties are liable to be convicted.

9. Since this is an appeal against the acquittal, it would be relevant to note the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the appreciation of evidence in the appeal against the acquittal. Recently in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 130, the Apex Court has held as under:-

"37. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

10. Assessing the aforementioned analysis and evaluation of the evidence with the aforesaid guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement of Mallappa(supra), we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has taken legally plausible view, which favours the accused and thus it does not deserves any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

11. In the case of Bannareddy v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 5 SCC 790, in paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal and in paragraph 26 it has been held that "the High Court should not have reappreciated the evidence in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial Court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities".

12. In Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 6 SCC 213, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to explain the limitations of exercise of power of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court.

13. In a recent judgment of this Court in Virendra Singh v. State of UP, 2022 (3) ADJ 354, the law on the issue involved has been considered.

14. Similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471.

15. After hearing the learned counsel for appellant two startling features have surfaced but the learned counsel for appellant was unable to meet out the following queries made by the Court:-

(i) Admittedly there is a demand of additional dowry in the shape of a car or Rs.3 lacs. This is the consistent prosecution case, but the most interesting feature is that for this demand of additional dowry, there is no whisper in the F.I.R. nor in 161 statement of the informant Nem Singh or his sister Renu or brother Ravi Kumar. All of a sudden, at the stage of trial a parallel story is created that there is a demand of a car or Rs.3 lacs by way of additional dowry at the stage of trial. This casts a serious doubt about the authenticity and veracity of the prosecution case. It's true that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia but the essential features of the case must be jotted down in the F.I.R. None of the witnesses in their respective statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. have made any reference of any additional dowry to the concerned I.O.

(ii) Both the sisters after the marriage remained in their matrimonial home for four good days and thereafter they came back to their father's place and remained there for two months. Thereafter, on 6.7.2018 both sisters were taken from Delhi to join their husbands at Aligarh, where Rajni has self-immolated herself during intervening night of 6/7.7.2018.

Thus, in the total stay of 5 days after the marriage, this unfortunate incident has taken place. No prudent person would accept that there is a demand of additional dowry within a short span of 5 days from marriage. When the aforesaid queries were made to the learned counsel for appellant, he simply failed to give any satisfactory reply to this query.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shanti vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226 and Panchanand Mandal vs. State of Jharkhand (2013) 9 SCC 800, has pointed out certain essential ingredients for attracting Section 304B I.P.C., which reads thus :

(i) The woman died unnaturally or on account of burn injury or bodily injury.

(ii) The woman died within seven years of her marriage.

(iii) The woman was subjected to harassment by her husband or relatives of husband.

(iv) Such harassment or cruelty was due to demand of dowry.

(v) Such cruelty or harassment was done with the woman soon before her death.

17. Learned Trial Judge has pointed out that as per the postmortem report prepared by the doctor Amit Singh (P.W.-6) the deceased has sustaining three simple injuries over her person; one is swelling on left cheek, second is small abrasion over the right side of the chin and the third is a small bruise over the right foot. Since there was no apparent injury over the person of the deceased, the viscera of the deceased was sent for F.S.L. examination. The F.S.L. report indicates that Organochloro Insecticide was found in her viscera. No doubt that within short span of 5 actual days of the marriage, the deceased Rajni has committed suicide by consuming the poisonous substance when she and her husband were in honeymoon period. No one can think in its wildest dream that somebody would demand additional dowry on the fifth day of her marriage. No doubt that this unfortunate incident have taken a short span of two months and few days but it is the prosecution who has to establish their case that there was a demand of additional dowry. The deceased died under suspicious circumstances by consuming poison.

18. As mentioned above, neither there is any whisper in the F.I.R. nor in 161 statements of various witnesses about the additional dowry or its related harassment. The Court has no other option but to infer that this figure of Rs.3 lacs or a car is nothing but an afterthought to anyhow bring the case within four corners of 304B I.P.C. It has also been referred in the judgment that these girls were born and bread at Delhi and Rajni was not at all inclined to marry with Umesh and go to Aligarh. It is just possible that out of sheer resentment she has taken this foolish step of self immolation.

19. Learned Trial Judge in paragraph nos.70 and 71 have concluded that there is no cruelty committed by the in-laws, that too, soon before the death of the deceased. So far as demand of Rs.3 lacs or car by way of additional dowry is concerned, the prosecution has failed to produce any complaint made by the deceased regarding the alleged harassment made by her in-laws, nor any panchayat was convened by them. There is not a single whisper that at any point of time the husband of the deceased or her in-laws have ever instigated her to commit suicide. This figure of Rs.3 lacs or a car does not find place in the F.I.R. nor in 161 statements given to the police by various witnesses of fact. The embellishments and improvements under such circumstances cannot be ruled out.

20. Our criminal justice dispensation system is solely dependent upon the testimonies of witnesses and when from the above mentioned testimonies it clearly comes out that none of the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt, then the conclusion arrived at by learned Trial Judge seems to be the most probable conclusion.

21. After perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, find that the trial court has taken a plausible and possible view of the matter on appreciation of entire evidence on record, which cannot be substituted by this Court by taking a different view as per the law discussed above. We also do not find that the findings recorded by the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. Accordingly, the present appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C. is DISMISSED.

Order Date :- 7.5.2024

M. Kumar