Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Sudhanshu Pandey And 2 Others on 25 August, 2025
Bench: Siddharth, Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:150329-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 538 of 2024
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application
1. Heard Smt. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-Ist for the State-appellant, Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the material on record.
2. The above noted government appeal is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 4.4.2024/06.04.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 481 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Sachin and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 164 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
3. The prosecution case is that the informant married her daughter to respondent no.1, Sudhanshu Pandey on 11.06.2024. Her daughter was residing along with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband at Mohalla, Gorakhnath, Gorakhpur. After one month of the marriage the aforesaid accused started demanding refrigerator, cooler and motorcycle and started beating and abusing her daughter. On 27.06.2015 she got information on phone that her daughter is burnt and admitted in medical college. After one hours he received information that she had died. The accused persons caused her death by way of burning.
4. The offence was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted against accused under Sections 498-A, 304B, 323, 504 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act and they were accordingly charge-sheeted. The accused denied the charges and sought trial.
5. Before the trial court the prosecution produced PW-1, informant Maya Mishra; PW-2 Bachcha Mishra; PW-3 Mritunjay Kumar; PW-4 Dhananjay Mishra; PW-5 Dr. M. V. Tewari; PW-6 Priydarshani Dwivedi; PW-7 Anita Pandey; PW-8 C.O Devendra Nath Shukla; PW-9 Constable Mahesh Chandra Pandey; PW-10 C.O. S. N. Singh and PW-11 Head Constable Sikandar Singh.
6. After considering the evidence on record trial acquitted the father-in-law and mother-in-law respondent nos.2 and 3 of all charges but convicted respondent no.1, Shudhanshu Pandey, under Sections 498A, 304 I.P.C for period of 8 years simple imprisonment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the order of acquittal passed by the trial is not in accordance with law and the punishment awarded to respondent no.1 is not commensurate with the offence committed by him.
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 rival submissions, we find that PW-1 and PW-2 are not eye witnesses of the incident. They came to know of the incident later and lodged the first information report. The statement of PW-2 is based on the information received from PW-1 and another person. He did not even went to place of incident. PW-3 is brother of the deceased, who was again not eye witness of the incident like the PW-1 and PW-2. PW-4 was also the witness of the same category. PW-5 proved that the deceased was brought before him in burnt condition. There was no smell of kerosene or petrol coming from her dead body. He could not tell the percentage of burn injury found in her body. He could not tell anything about the burnt Sari of the deceased. PW-6 is resident of the same locality where the deceased was residing and proved that the deceased came out running from her house and was burning below her waist. PW-6 raised alarm and called her brother and many other persons of the locality gathered; her brother threw the gunny over her and informed the police on number 100. When the deceased was being taken in the ambulance she was alive. She admitted in cross-examination that at the time of incident the husband of deceased, Shudhansu Pandey/ respondent no.1, was not in the house. He had gone to perform puja path since he was priest. He also admitted that deceased alone in her home at the time of incident. The relation-ship between the couple was cordial. She never saw them quarreling. On the place of incident 3 - 4 utensils and one small gas stove was found. There was one bedding on the floor in the same room and there was no other person present in the house. PW-VII, Anita Pandey, other neighbour of the deceased, proved that on the date of incident wife of Shushanshu came running from her house in burning state. Number of people of the locality gathered. One of them dialed no.100. Police and Ambulance came and took her. Pankaj got burnt in attempt to save Lakshmi, the deceased. She stated that the deceased informed her earlier that there is influence of Bhoot on her. She never heard the couple fighting. We find from the evidence on record that it is not a case of dowry death or murder but appears to be case of accident/suicide. From the statement of PW-6 and 7, it is absolutely clear that no one put deceased on fire.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court's judgement is a well merited one, this Court need not re-appreciate the evidences.
18. This leave to appeal application is rejected.
Order on Government Appeal
Since leave to appeal application is rejected, therefore, the above noted government appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
August 25, 2025
SS
