State Of U.P. vs Purshottam S/O Bhagwan Das
2025 Latest Caselaw 1051 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Purshottam S/O Bhagwan Das on 17 May, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89260-DB
 
Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 136 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Purshottam S/O Bhagwan Das
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

Order On Leave to Appeal (Application) No......2024.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant; Ms. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-Ist for State and perused the material on record.

2. This above noted leave to appeal application has been filed praying for leave to appeal the judgment and order dated 19.08.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 45/2020 (State Vs. Purshottam), whereby accused-respondent has been acquitted all charges under section 498-A, 323, 506, 304 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant has given a written report at Police Station concerned stating therein that the complainant has solemnized the marriage of his daughter, namely, Arti on 16.2.2019 with accused-respondent according to Hindu rites and rituals and in the marriage he given dowry according to his capacity but the Accused-Respondent and in laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the same and they have demanded additional dowry in the shape of Rs. 5 lakhs cash and a Alto Car and due to the non fulfillment of their demand they stared harassing and torturing the deceased. The accused-respondent and his other family member due to the non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry have committed the murder of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid, first information report of the present case was registered and the investigating officer after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet.

4. The Accused-respondent denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1, Chandrasen; PW-2, Smt. Shyama Devi; PW-3, Dr. Satish Kumar; PW-4, Brahampal alias Prempal; PW-5, Ram Kishor; PW-6, Pramod Kumar (Tehsildar); PW-7, Head Constable Chandaki Ram; PW-8 Jaipal; PW-9, C.O. Vidhya Kishore and (Superintendent of Police). PW-10 Satyajeet Gupta.

6. The 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 are entitled for acquittal.

7. 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.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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."

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the record, we find that that the cause of death of the deceased was presence of organo phosphorus insecticides in her viscera report. Prosecution did not produced any evidence to prove that prior to the marriage of the deceased or thereafter any demand of dowry was made by the respondent. She came to her parental home on number of times after her marriage prior to her bidai , but she made no complaint. For the first time she made complaint about the dowry on telephone on the festival of Karwachauth. P.W.-4, clearly proved that the deceased was never subjected to harassment in her matrimonial home nor any demand of dowry was made. P.W.-4, was the uncle(mama) of the deceased. P.W.-5 also admitted that he attended the marriage of the deceased and the respondent, but he never came to know of demand of dowry. He stated that the deceased was his niece and used to remain ill and she may have consumed poison for the aforesaid reason. P.W.-8 stated that no other injury was found on the body of the deceased.

16. Trial court has considered the evidence on record and found that the ingredients for constituting offence under section 304 IPC are not proved before the Court and hence it has recorded the finding of acquittal of the respondent.

17. After considering the evidence on record, this Court does not finds 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 evidence.

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.

Let the record of the trial court be returned and this judgement to be notified to the trial court, within two weeks.

Order Date :- 17.5.2025

Abhishek