Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Rishikesh S/O Ramji Verma on 22 November, 2024
Bench: Siddharth, Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182747-DB
Court No. - 48
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 217 of 2024
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Rishikesh S/O Ramji Verma
Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand
Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Pathak
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application
1. Heard 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 (Fast Track Court-II)(Offence against women), District- Sant Kabir Nagar, vide order dated 01.02.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2014 (State of U.P. vs. Rishikesh) under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC, Section- 3/4 D.P. Act & alternate under Section 302 IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in year 2011 respondent had enticed away the daughter of complainant, namely, Shivangi. The complainant's father has given information at Police Station- Kotwali Basti regarding this incident. Upon this information concerned police called the parents of accused respondent at police station Kowali Basti and also called the father of complainant and a compromise took places between them on 08.08.2011. Thereafter the father of complainant solemnized marriage of his daughter, namely, Shivangi, with respondent, Rishikesh son of Ramji according to hindu marriage rites. In the marriage father of deceased had given sufficient dowry according to his capacity i.e., utensils, ornaments, cloths, motorcycle, T.V. Fridge, Cooler, Sofa, etc. Thereafter in-laws of deceased, Shivangi, harassed and tortured her for bring money from her maika and father of complainant had fulfilled demand of in-laws of Shivangi several times. From the wedlock of couple a female child was born. After 15 days her in-laws again demanded dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- lacs and due to non-fulfilment of the same they continuously harassed her. She narrated the same to the complainant. Thereafter, the husband of the victim took her back to her in-laws house and on 22.12.2013 at about 07:00 hrs a phone call was received by complainant informing that Shivangi has got burnt. After receiving information, complainant and his other family members reached the spot. Then they came to know that her in-laws had taken her to Medical College, Gorakhpur. When they reached there they found the victim was being treated, however, she died on 23.12.2013 at about 5:00 a.m. On the basis of the aforesaid information the F.I.R of the present case was lodged in which Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet and charges were framed against them by trial court.
4. The accused-respondent denied the prosecution allegations and sought trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined P.W.-1, complainant/ Avinash Chandra Verma; P.W.-2, Brahmanand Verma; P.W.-3, Saroj Verma; P.W.-4, Dr. S.K. Yadav; P.W.-5, Rajendra Kumar; P.W.-6; Rakesh Ram (Naib Tehsildar) and P.W.-7, Parshuram Singh (S.I).
6. Learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused-respondent is entitled for acquittal.
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 counsel for the appellant and going through the record, this court finds that the trial court has considered the statement of witnesses and thereafter recorded the judgment and order of acquittal. Trial court has found that P.W.-1 in his cross-examination admitted that the marriage of deceased took place on 08.08.2011 without any dowry. There was no demand of dowry made from respondent's side. Deceased used to frequent her parental home but never informed anyone in this regard. No complaint whatsoever was made before any authority in this regard nor any panchayat took place. P.W.-1 only stated that about two months ago the deceased informed him on phone regarding demand of dowry being made from her, however, he could not inform the phone number from which call was made to him by the deceased.
17. P.W.-2 admitted in his examination-in-chief that the marriage of deceased took place with the respondent without any dowry. After marriage she was being treated by two doctors at Gorakhpur for mental ailment. Once or twice he accompanied members of matrimonial home of deceased to the doctors for treatment of his daughter. She was under treatment when she died. He also admitted that he never made any complaint of the accused before any authority nor any panchayat took place.
18. P.W.-3 also testified to the fact of the illness of deceased and her treatment by her father-in-law and mother-in-law. She also stated that no demand of dowry was made from his daughter but prior to her death she informed that her husband wants to purchase a land and needs money.
19. Trial court has found that the ingredients for causing dowry death of the deceased or the offence of her murder is not borne out from the evidence on record. After she got burnt her father-in-law took her to the hospital.
20. This court is of the view that view taken by the trial court does not appears to be improbable and keeping in view the evidence on record, counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any perversity in findings recorded by the trial court.
19. This leave to appeal application is rejected.
Order on Government Appeal No. 217 of 2024
Since leave to appeal application is rejected, therefore, the above noted government appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024
Rohit
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) (Siddharth, J.)
