Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ram Niwas And 4 Others on 28 May, 2024
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96854-DB
Court No. - 67
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 224 of 2024
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ram Niwas And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal)
1. Heard Shri Satendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A., appearing for the appellant-State of UP and perused the record.
2. This government appeal was filed beyond time by 60 days and vide order dated 21.5.2024 we have condoned the delay and directed the Registry to allocate regular number. Hence after having regular number the instant government appeal is before this Court.
3. The present government appeal u/s 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.07, Firozabad while deciding two sessions trials i.e. Sessions Trial No.393 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Niwas and 2 others) and Sessions Trial No.287 of 2014 (State of U.P. vs. Ravi Kumar and another), arising out of Case Crime No.02 of 2013, u/s 498A, 307/149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District-Firozabad, whereby the accused-opposite party nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been acquitted from the aforesaid charges.
4. We have the occasion to peruse the impugned judgment. The genesis of the case starts with lodging of the F.I.R. by the informant Smt. Sunita, who herself is an injured, with the allegation that she got married with Ravi Kumar on 05.07.2006 as per Hindu Rites. The marriage was solemnized with lots of fanfare and spending considerable money. Rs.5 lacs were spent in the marriage, but the in-laws were not happy and satisfied with the dowry given and they have started demanding Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle by way of additional dowry. On this score, she was kept in inhumane condition and sometimes she was kept in starvation. The informant has referred two incidents in the F.I.R.; the first was of 04.4.2012 around 07.00 in the morning whereby her husband and in-laws poured kerosene oil upon her and set her ablaze and thereafter in an injured condition they left her in her Maika. Her parent has taken her to Government Hospital, Firozabad and got her treated there. An application to this effect was given by her on 30.04.2012 to the S.P., Etah and S.H.O., Awagarh narrating her aweful story and pursuant thereof Shri Ram Niwas (father-in-law) was arrested, but it seem that there was truce between them, therefore, Ram Niwas was releaed without any proceeding. The second incident mentioned in the F.I.R. is of 26.6.2012 around 08.00 in the evening all the members of in-laws came to her Maika in a Bolero car and started hurling filthy abuses and demanded a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- cash. They have committed marpeet with Smt. Sunita. After hearing the screaming and alarm, other cohabitant assumbered there. The co-villagers anyhow saved her, else she might be eliminated. The informant has come to know that her husband has remarried with some other girl.
5. From the prosecution story as mentioned above it is clear that the F.I.R. is lodged after 8 months of the incident, for which there is no plausible explanation coming forward. Secondly the police after registering the F.I.R. and conducting thorough investigation, on 07.06.2013 has submitted charge sheet against accused Ram Niwas, Guddi Devi and Raghunath u/s 498A, 307, 494, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section of D.P. Act. A supplementary charge sheet was also filed by the police on 10.03.2014 against accused Ravi Kumar and Omshree u/s 498A, 307, 494, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section D.P. Act.
6. The concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and same being cognizable offences, was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Trial Judge has framed charges against the aforesaid accused persons u/s 498A, 307, 494, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section D.P. Act, which were explained and narrated to the accused-respondents, but they have denied and insisted to be tried.
7. In support of prosecution case, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. Since both the sessions trials are related to one and same incident, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the learned Trial Judge has decided both session trials by a common judgment dated 22.11.2023.
8. We have considered the submissions and have perused the record including the judgment of acquittal.
9. Since it is a government appeal against the acquittal, it will 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. In the case of Bannareddy and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (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"
11. In Jayamma vs. 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.
12. In a recent judgement of this Court in Virendra Singh vs. State of UP and others, 2022 (3) ADJ 354 DB, the law on the issue involved has been considered.
13. Similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471.
14. On perusal of testimony of witnesses, we find that P.W.-1 Sunita in her testimony has reiterated the version of the F.I.R. in which she referred two incidents; first was of 04.04.2012 and second was of 26.6.2012. It is clearly mentioned in paragraph 15 of the judgment that there is no plausible justification coming forward for the alleged delay of 8 months in lodging of the F.I.R. whereas the defence counsel states that on 4.4.2012 the alleged incident of pouring kerosene oil is probably absurd and false and it is only a figment of imagination. In fact the injured Smt. Sunita was suffering from epilepsia and she was a suffering of epileptic attack and while making meals she was suffering the same fate and got her injured. There were burn injuries over her person. Her parent has given a colour of dowry related harassment and assaulted upon her but fact remains that she was suffering from epilepsia that was the real cause of injury inflicted to her.
15. The testimony of P.W.-7 Dr. Sanjiv Kumar and P.W.-8 Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma occupy significance that on account of incident of 4.4.2012 she was admitted in the District Hospital,, Firozabad. In Bed Head Ticket there is a mention of "old burn injuries" and Dr. Sanjv Kumar n his testimony states that on 4.4.2012 around 06.30 p.m. he was on duty as S.N.M., District Hospital, Firozabad in emergency and the injured Sunita and her mother Haribheji came to him from Firozabad. The doctor in his testimony in no uncertain terms states that the injuries sustained by the injured was old one and cannot be said that same were caused within a period of last two days and that is why in the Bed Head Ticket the old burn injury was mentioned.
There is apparent anomalous and discrepancy in her statement and to allege that she was said to have given burn injury in order to eliminate her, found false by the learned Trial Judge after assessing the testimony of various eye-witnesses.
16. The prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond pale of doubt that on 4.4.2012 around 07.00 in the evening her in-laws set her ablaze. In paragraph 18 of the judgment there is an apparent and deep discrepancy in the testimony of witnesses while referring to the incident of 26.6.2012 around 08.00 in the evening all the in-laws in a Bolero car came to the informant at Judges Compound Dabrai Firozabad and started hurling filthy abuses and demanded a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- cash by way of additional dowry. But she does not know the number of vehicle and she further states that her in-laws stayed there for the period of 1-2 hours where there was serious deliberation regarding the future of Smt. Sunita.
17. Thus assessing the totality of circumstances and evaluating the various testimonies, in paragraph 19 of the judgment it has been clearly opined by the learned Trial Judge that there is nothing on record to establish that the accused-respondents have ever demanded Rs.50000/- and a motorcycle from his wife. It is also mentioned that respondent no.4 and 5 Nanad and Nandoi were residing separately, under the circumstances, there is feasible chance to demand any additional dowry by them or it cannot be said that they could be beneficiary of alleged additional dowry. She was never demanded any dowry nor she made any complaint during last six years of her marriage.
18. After assessing the circumstances in its entirety and after shifting and weighing the evidence, the learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the charge framed against the accused-respondents u/s 498A, 307/149, 494, 323/149, 504, 506 I.P.C. & D.P. Act is not made out beyond reasonable doubt.
19. In view of the aforesaid, as reflected from perusal of the evidence, we find that the court below has taken a 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.
20. Accordingly, it is not a case worth granting leave to appeal. The application for granting leave to appeal is rejected.
Re: Government Appeal
1. Consequently, since the Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) has been rejected by order of this date, the present government appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
M. Kumar
