State Of U.P. vs Shekhpal And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 1505 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Shekhpal And Another on 2 July, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:102265-DB
 
Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 162 of 2025
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Shekhpal And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

(Per Justice Avnish Saxena)

Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. Nil of 2025

1. Heard Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-appellant and perused the record.

2. The above noted government appeal is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi, vide order dated 20.12.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2018 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shekhpal and 2 others) arising out of Case Crime No. 898 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Gunnaur, District- Sambhal, whereby the respondents, namely, Shekhpal and Smt. Shanti Devi, have been acquitted of the charges under Sections- 498-A, 304-B,alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The third accused Rajpal passed away during the trial, hence, trial abated against him.

3. The brief conspectus of the case shun of unnecessary details is such that father of the deceased, Meera has lodged the F.I.R. with the allegation that his daughter was married to Shekhpal (accused) in the month of March, 2015 (no specific date of marriage is provided), but after marriage her in-laws including the husband started atrocious behaviour with the deceased for demand of dowry, which has been sorted out by the relatives, though the accused were continuously demanding Rs. 2 lacs and a car. In the night of 12th December, 2017, the informant received a phone call intimating that the in-laws had administered poison to deceased-Meera. On the said information, the informant and family members reached Bahjoi hospital, where the doctors had referred the deceased for better medical care and administration, then the informant and family members took the deceased to Cosmos Hospital, Moradabad, where she died at about 4.00 a.m. on 13th December, 2017.

4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. The charges were framed for dowry death and in alternative of murder. Nine witnesses have been produced by the prosecution, out of whom four are witnesses of fact and five are formal witnesses.

5. On adjudication and appreciation of evidence, the learned trial judge found inconsistency in the deposition of witnesses in respect to administering of poison, on point of prior demand of dowry, atrocious behaviour of the accused for the said demand of dowry and cruelty meted to the deceased soon before the death. This observation has been made in view of evidence adduced by the prosecution that there is different version of the witnesses of fact, namely, PW-1, Vijay Pal, PW-2, Hansraj and PW-3 Satyaveer as one of the witness has stated that the poison 'aluminium phosphide' has been administered by mixing it in a glass of milk and two of the witnesses did not specify as to how poison was administered to the deceased. It is also observed that there is no ante mortem injury found on the person of the deceased. Further found that the medical report of Bahjoi hospital, where the deceased was first admitted, has not been produced in evidence before the court and no doctor of Bahjoi hospital was examined.

6. It has also been observed by the trial judge that no specific details have been produced in evidence by the prosecution, either oral or through documents pertaining to the cruel behaviour of the accused towards deceased for demand of dowry; when the meeting between the parties for amicable dispute resolution took place and whether any further cruelty is reported. On the contrary, it is also observed by the trial judge that after eleven months of marriage, the deceased gave birth to a baby boy and family members of the deceased as well as accused gathered to celebrate the ritual.

7. Trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and to attract presumption of dowry death.

8. Learned A.G.A.-I for the State/appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.

9. 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.

10. 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."

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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."

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

15. The record reveals that there is no evidence pertaining to admitting the deceased at Bahjoi hospital, where the doctor treated the deceased. There is no ante-mortem injury found on the person of deceased to show that the deceased was forcibly administered poison. Moreover, the aluminium phosphide poison is insoluble in water and PW-2 Hansraj has stated that deceased has informed that deceased's in-laws administered her poison by dissolving it in glass of milk. There is, in fact, no evidence to show demand of dowry and committing of cruelty for the said demand and no evidence to establish cruelty soon before the death.

16. Thus after hearing learned counsel for the State and going through the record, we find that there is no clinching evidence which has been ignored by the trial judge while acquitting the accused which requires the grant of leave for filing of appeal against acquittal, hence the same is declined.

17. Application for leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected.

Order on Government Appeal No. 162 of 2025

Consequent upon rejection of Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. Nil of 2025, the government appeal is also dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.7.2025

MN/-

(Avnish Saxena,J.) (Siddharth,J.)