Deenanath Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9109 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Deenanath Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 August, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth, Santosh Rai

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146926-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 483 of 2024
 
Court No. - 47
 
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Rajeev Nayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A for the respondent no. 1 and perused the material on record.

2. The above noted criminal appeal is being preferred against the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Ballia in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2021 in Case Crime No. 254 of 2020 by means of which the court below has passed judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused person / opposite party nos. 2 and 3 who have been acquitted under Section 498-A, 304-B, 323/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case is that daughter of informant, P.W.-1 was married on 09.02.2019 to Suneet Kumar Singh @ Pankaj, son of Suresh Singh. Thereafter, when his daughter came back to her matrimonial home, she informed that her husband, father-in-law, Suresh Singh, mother-in-law, Kamlawati Singh, elder brother-in-law, Amit Singh and elder sister-in-law wife of Amit Singh, taunt her for bringing less dowry and demand a Brezza car. On 13.08.2020 her daughter informed her son, Bablu Singh on phone that she has been beaten by the aforesaid persons brutally. On the basis of this information, P.W.-1 went to the matrimonial home of his daughter on 14.06.2020 at 08:00 a.m where he found that the deceased hanged to death by accused by a rope.

4.All the accused were charge sheeted and summoned for trial under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act vide S.T. No. 76 of 2021 and S.T. No. 620 of 2020. They denied the charges and sought trial.

5.The prosecution produced P.W.-1, Deenanath Singh; P.W.-2, Diwarkar Singh; P.W.-3, Baby Singh; P.W.-4, Dr. Prem Prakash; P.W.-5, Jaya Singh (Tehsildar); P.W.-6, Constable Durgesh Tiwari; P.W.-7, Arun Kumar Singh (Circle Officer) and P.W.-8, Yogendra Prasad Singh, to prove the prosecution case.

6. Documentary evidence were lead and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that the deceased was married to co-accused, Suneet Kumar Singh, against her wishes and therefore she was under depression. She committed suicide by way of hanging after bolting the door from inside. The door was opened in the presence of the other villagers and by that time the deceased had died. Police was called and thereafter inquest proceedings were conducted. P.W.-1, Jai Narayan Singh, was examined as defence witness.

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 the rival submissions, this Court finds that the trial court has convicted the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but has acquitted the brother-in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani), namely Amit Singh and Savita @ Babli. The trial court recorded a finding that co-accused, Amit Singh and Savita @ Babli, were residing separately from the couple as well as from the father-in-law and mother-in-law, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the general allegations made against them with respect to the commission of the alleged offences. Accordingly, they were acquitted by the trial court.

17. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid accused, arrayed as respondent nos. 2 and 3 were implicated on allegations similar to those levelled against the convicted co-accused, and therefore they ought to have been convicted by the trial court in the same manner as the other co-accused.

18. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State Of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 5991, has held that in such cases relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime is made out.

19. The Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C stands dismissed.

August 25, 2025

Rohit