State Of U.P. vs Shailendra Kumar And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 38497 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Shailendra Kumar And 3 Others on 22 November, 2024

Bench: Siddharth, Subhash Chandra Sharma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182534-DB
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 405 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Shailendra Kumar And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application

1. Heard Sri G.N. Kanaujia, learned A.G.A.-I for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The above noted government appeal is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, District- Meerut, vide order dated 02.04.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 470 of 2016 (State of U.P. vs. Shailendra Kumar) and Session Trial No. 850 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Amreesh and others).

3. The prosecution story in brief that on 03.01.2016 complainant, Smt. Chandrakanta, wife of Mukesh Kumar, resident of 741, Roshanpur Dorali, District- Meerut, had given a written report at concerned police station stating therein that she was living along with her family and she had solemnized marriage of her daughter, namely, Dolly last year with respondent no. 1, Shailendra S/o Sri Tejram alias Muneem, resident of Hawaspur, Vikas, Police Station Babugarh Cantt, District Hapur (presently residing at village Roshanpur, Meerut, U.P). After some time family members of her matrimonial home started pressurizing her daughter to bring dowry of Rs. 2-4 lacs. She complained to her regarding this on her mobile phone and stated that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and others say that you should bring at least Rs. 2-4 lacs, because you are the only child of your parents. Due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry the respondents harassed her and administered poisonous substance to her on 02.01.2016 and admitted the victim at S.D.S Global Hospital at Modipuram, (Meerut). Her daughter died on 03.01.2016 due to poisoning. On the basis of the aforesaid information the first information report of the present case was registered in which the Investigating Officer, after due investigation submitted charge-sheet.

4. The accused-respondents denied the prosecution allegations and sought trial.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined PW-1, Chandrakanta (Complainant); PW-2 Smt. Surekha; PW3, Dr. Sriom; PW-4, Anil Kumar C/C 382; PW-5, Ranjeet Kumar, Assistant Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, Vibhag and PW-6, Dr. Arvind Kumar, (A.S.P).

6. Learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.

8. The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment acquitting an accused on the principle that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by such a judgment. The above principle has been consistently followed by the Constitutional Court while deciding appeals against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution or appeals filed under Section 378 and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. in State of M.P. Vs. Sharad Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by re-appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below:

"Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity.

11. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under:

"25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."

13. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

14. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

15. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we will examine the trial court's findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order.

16. After hearing learned state counsel for the appellant, this court finds that the marriage of the deceased with respondent no. 1, shailendra Kumar, took place in March, 2015 without any dowry. It has come in the evidence that it was love marriage of the couple and no dowry was given in the marriage. P.W.-1 has admitted this fact in his statement before the court. The deceased died after consuming poison. There was no injury whatsoever found on her body. The trial court has recorded clear finding of fact that organochloro insecticide was found in the viscera of the deceased which is a common insecticide.

17. The trial court has not found the ingredients required for constituting offence of dowry death against the respondents and the state-counsel is unable to demonstrate before this court any perversity in the finding recorded by the trial court.

18. In view of the above, the leave to appeal application is rejected.

Order on Government Appeal No. 405 of 2024

Since leave to appeal application is rejected, therefore, the above noted government appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.11.2024

Rohit

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) (Siddharth, J.)