Umesh Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9650 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Umesh Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62107
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 82
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1358 of 2016
 

 
Revisionist :- Umesh Gupta And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 

 
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
 

 

Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2024

1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 8.8.2022.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that this criminal revision was filed in the year 2016 and this Court passed order dated 12.5.2016 whereby, the operation and implementation of the order dated 22.4.2016 was stayed. Thereafter, this criminal revision was listed before this Court in the category of infructuous matters and this Court vide order dated 8.8.2022 dismissed this criminal revision as having become infructuous. This Court granted liberty to the revisionists to file an application for revival of the criminal revision, if the cause of action still survives. The aforesaid order dated 8.8.2022 passed by this Court was never informed to the revisionists and for the first time, the applicant came to know about the said order when bailable warrants were issued by the trial court and immediately thereafter, the application for recall of the order dated 8.8.2022 has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 8.8.2022 is neither deliberate nor intentional but is attributable to the fact that the applicant was not aware about the order dated 8.8.2022.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and have also perused the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 8.8.2022.

5. This Court is of the view that the delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 8.8.2022 has been sufficiently explained.

6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 8.8.2022, is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 8.8.2022 is hereby condoned.

Crl. Misc. Recall Application No.02 of 2024

7. This is an application for recall of the order dated 8.8.2022.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid criminal revision had been filed in the year 2016 and this Court vide order dated 12.5.2016 stayed the operation and implementation of the order dated 22.4.2016. Thereafter, this criminal revision was listed in the cause list, in the category of infructuous cases, and this Court vide order dated 8.8.2022 dismissed the criminal revision as having become infructuous. It has also been pointed out that this Court, while passing the order dated 8.8.2022, had granted liberty to the revisionists to file an application for recall of the said order, if the cause of action still survives.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the cause of action for filing the criminal revision still survives as the criminal trial bearing Sessions Trial No.353-A/2013 is still pending before the court concerned therefore, the matter has not become infructuous.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and I find that still, the criminal revision has not lost its relevance therefore, the order dated 8.8.2022 is liable to be recalled.

11. Accordingly, the application for recall of the order dated 8.8.2022 is hereby recalled and the criminal revision is restored at its original number.

Order On Memo Of Revision

12. Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Revisionist No.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

13. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 22.4.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.26, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No.353/2013 whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the revisionists have been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

14. Learned counsel appearing for Revisionist No.2, at the very outset, has submitted that this criminal revision has lost its relevance so far as Revisionist No.1 is concerned as he had already died.

15. It has been contended on behalf of Revisionist No.2 that she is sister of the husband of the deceased and after her marriage, she was living separately. It has further been contended that Revisionist No.2 has nothing to do with the crime in question and there are only general allegations against her, only just to implicate her in the matter.

16. Learned counsel appearing for Revisionist No.2 has apprised the Court that the Sessions Trial of the revisionists was separated from Sessions Trial No.353/2013 and had been numbered as 353A/2013. The Sessions Trial No.353/2013 proceeded against the husband i.e. the main accused and other sisters of the husband and that trial had been concluded vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.26, Shahjahanpur whereby, the main accused i.e. husband had been convicted and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of seven years but the other co-accused i.e. sisters of the husband namely Km. Jyoti Gupta and Km. Prachi Gupta have been acquitted from the charges.

17. Learned counsel appearing for Revisionist No.2 has argued that the allegations identical to that of the allegations made against Km. Jyoti Gupta and Km. Prachi Gupta had been levelled against Revisionist No.2 and on that basis, she had been summoned to face the trial. It has further been argued that once for the same charge, Km. Jyoti Gupta and Km. Prachi Gupta have been acquitted, there is no occasion for trial of Revisionist No.2 on the same charge and on the same evidence.

18. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though tried to oppose this criminal revision but could not justify, as to when for the same allegation and on the same evidence, other sisters-in-law of the deceased i.e. Km. Jyoti Gupta and Km. Prachi Gupta have been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 17.3.2013 passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No.353/2013, then how for the same charge and on the same evidence, Revisionist No.2, who is also sister-in-law of the deceased, can be tried and convicted.

19. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for Revisionist No.2 and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision.

20. I find that general role had been assigned to various family members including three sisters-in-law of the deceased. The Sessions Trial No.353/2013, on the same charge and evidence had already been concluded and the trial court had convicted the husband of the deceased and had sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of seven years but the sisters-in-law of the deceased namely Km. Jyoti Gupta and Km. Prachi Gupta have been acquitted.

21. This Court finds that when for the same charge and on the same evidence, two sisters-in-law of the deceased have been acquitted by the trial court, there cannot be any occasion for trial of Revisionist No.2 for the same charge and evidence.

22. Even otherwise, this Court finds that in the entire matter, no specific role has been assigned to Revisionist No.2 and there are only general allegations of demand of dowry by the family members of the husband therefore, there is no occasion for the trial court to proceed with the trial against Revisionist No.2.

23. The trial court, while dealing with Sessions Trial No.353/2013, had recorded following findings in respect of two sisters-in-law namely Km. Jyoti Gupta and Km. Prachi Gupta:

"66. अतः उक्त विवेचना से यह प्रमाणित होता है कि मृतका रामा उर्फ रीमा की मृत्यु सामान्य से अन्यथा परिस्थितियों में, अपने पति के घर में फांसी लगाये जाने के विवाह से सात वर्षों के भीतर हुयी थी और मृतका को उसकी मृत्यु से पूर्व अभियुक्त सनी उर्फ कुलभूषण गुप्ता द्वारा पांच लाख रुपये व टाटा सफारी गाड़ी की मॉग को लेकर प्रताड़ित किया जाता था। उपरोक्त साक्षीगणों के साक्ष्य से यह भी स्पष्ट हो चुका है कि घटना के दिनांक से एक दिन पहले मृतका को अभियुक्त सनी उर्फ कुलभूषण गुप्ता द्वारा दहेज की मांग के लिए प्रताड़ित किया गया था। उपरोक्त साक्षियों के साक्ष्य से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि घटना के दो माह पहले मृतका के भाई वादी मुकदमा पी०डब्लू-1 राजीव गुप्ता के द्वारा अतिरिक्त दहेज के रूप एक लाख रुपये अभियुक्तगण के घर पर दिया था। साक्षियों के साक्ष्य से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि मृतका की शादी में वादी पक्ष द्वारा 6 लाख रुपये व 100 ग्राम सोने का दहेज दिया गया था और शादी के कुछ माह बाद से ही अतिरिक्त दहेज में मैरिज लान के पांच लाख रुपये व एक टाटा सफारी गाड़ी की मांग की जाती थी। मैरिज लॉन बन रहा था, यह साबित है। अभियुक्त द्वारा एक लाख रुपये मैरिज लॉन बनवाने के लिए उधार लिया गया था न कि अतिरिक्त दहेज में लिया गया था, संतुष्टिकारक साक्ष्य द्वारा साबित नहीं किया गया है और न ही इस आशय का संतुष्टिकारक साक्ष्य दिया गया है कि मृतका गर्भ धारण न कर सकने से अवसाद से ग्रस्त थी। मृतका रामा उर्फ रीमा गुप्ता की मृत्यु उसके ससुराल में विवाह के सात वर्ष के अन्दर ही असामान्य परिस्थितियों में हुयी है। मांगे गये अतिरिक्त दहेज का लाभार्थी प्रत्यक्ष व अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से अभियुक्त सनी उर्फ कुलभूषण व उसका पिता (मृतक पूरन लाल गुप्ता) ही होते न कि उसकी बहनें। अभियोजन पक्ष द्वारा कु० ज्योति गुप्ता व कु० प्राची गुप्ता द्वारा अतिरिक्त दहेज मांगे जाने की सक्रिय भूमिका को साबित नहीं किया जा सका है और न ही यह स्थापित किया गया है कि कु० ज्योति गुप्ता व कु० प्राची गुप्ता दहेज प्राप्त होने पर प्रत्यक्ष रूप से लाभार्थी होतीं। ऐसी दशा में मात्र अभियुक्तागण का मृतका के पति से निकटतम रिश्ता होने के कारण फंसाये जाने की सम्भावना से इन्कार नहीं किया जा सकता है। ऐसी दशा में मृतका के पति के अलावा उनकी भूमिका को अभियोजन द्वारा संदेह से परे साबित किया जाना चाहिए था। आज कल ऐसे प्रकरण में प्रायः यह देखा जा रहा है कि मृतका के सभी ससुरालीजनों को, जो उनके साथ रह रहे हों या न रहे हों, दहेज हत्या के मामलों में नामजद कर दिया जाता है और यदि इस प्रकार की प्रवृत्ति को हतोत्साहित नहीं किया गया तो अभियोजन मामले में असली गुनहगारों पर भी विपरीत प्रभाव डालेगा। मृतका के मायके वाले अपनी उत्तेजना व उत्सुकता में मृतका के ससुरालीजनों में अधिक से अधिक लोगों को ऐसे प्रकरण में सजा दिलवाये जाने की कोशिश करते हैं, जिससे अंतिमतः दोषी अभियुक्त के विरुद्ध भी अभियोजन प्रकरण कमजोर हो जाता है। अभियुक्त द्वारा धारा 113-बी भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत की गयी इस उपधारणा, कि उसी ने मृतका की दहेज हत्या की है, को खण्डित करने के लिये जो अभियोजन साक्ष्य में विसंगतियां बतायी हैं, उससे अभियोजन कथानक प्रभावित नहीं होता है तथा धारा 113-बी की उपधारणा समाप्त नहीं होती है। अतः अभियोजन अभियुक्त सनी उर्फ कुलभूषण गुप्ता के विरुद्ध धारा 498ए, 304बी भा०दं०सं० व धारा 4 दहेज प्रतिषेध अधिनियम के परिपेक्ष्य में अपना कथानक प्रत्येक युक्तियुक्त सन्देह से परे प्रमाणित करने में पूर्णतः सफल रहा है, परन्तु धारा 302 भा०दं०सं० के अन्तर्गत अभियोजन अभियुक्त सनी उर्फ कुलभूषण गुप्ता के विरुद्ध अपना कथानक युक्तियुक्त सन्देह से परे प्रमाणित नहीं कर पाया है तथा साथ ही अभियोजन अभियुक्तागण कु० ज्योति गुप्ता व कु० प्राची गुप्ता के विरुद्ध धारा 498ए, 304बी, 302 भा०दं०सं० व 4 दहेज प्रतिषेध अधिनियम का आरोप युक्तियुक्त संदेह से परे साबित करने में असफल रहा है।

67. अतः उक्त विवेचन से स्प्ष्ट होता है कि अभियोजन पक्ष द्वारा अपना कथानक अभियुक्त सनी उर्फ कुलभूषण गुप्ता के विरुद्ध अंतर्गत धारा 498ए, 304बी भा०दं० सं० व 4 दहेज प्रतिषेध अधिनियम का आरोप युक्तियुक्त संदेह से परे सिद्ध कर दिया गया है। अतः अभियुक्त सनी उर्फ कुलभूषण गुप्ता धारा 498ए, 304बी भा०दं०सं० एवं धारा 4 दहेज प्रतिषेध अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत दोषसिद्ध किये जाने योग्य है, जबकि धारा 302 भा०दं०सं० के अन्तर्गत दोषमुक्त किये जाने योग्य है तथा अभियुक्तागण कु० ज्योति गुप्ता व कु० प्राची गुप्ता को धारा 498ए, 304बी, 302 भा०दं०सं० व 4 दहेज प्रतिषेध अधिनियम के आरोपों से दोषमुक्त किये जाने योग्य है।"

24. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the Sessions Trial No.353/2013 had already been concluded vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2017 and two sisters-in-law of the deceased namely Km. Jyoti Gupta and Km. Prachi Gupta have been acquitted, there cannot be any occasion for this Court to allow the summoning of Revisionist No.2 as additional accused in separate Sessions Trial No.353A/2023.

25. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 22.4.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.26, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No.353/2013, is hereby set aside. The proceedings of Sessions Trial No.353-A/2013, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.03, Shahjahanpur, are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 24.4.2025

Salim