State Of U.P. vs Pintu S/O Vijaypal And 02 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 7015 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Pintu S/O Vijaypal And 02 Others on 20 May, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84142-DB
 
Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 315 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Pintu S/O Vijaypal And 02 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.

Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. of 2022

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned AGA-1st for the State-appellant and perused the material on record.

2. The above noted leave to appeal application has been filed praying for grant of leave to the appellant to prefer appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 27.01.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., District Meerut, in Sessions Case Nos. 703 of 2014 (State Vs. Pintu and another) and 330 of 2015 (State Vs. Smt. Sheela)

3. By the aforesaid judgement and order, the accused-respondent has been acquitted of all charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, which was registered as Case Crime No. 13 of 2014 at Police Station KharKhauda, District Meerut,

4. The prosecution story in brief is that informant married his daughter to respondent no.1, Pintu, on 10.12.2012 after making sufficient expenses, but respondents and other family members of her matrimonial home used to beat and harass her asking her to bring further amount as dowry. They demanded Rs.1 lac and the informant accepted the demand and sought time for 2-3 months. On 5.1.2014 at about 8:00 p.m., Sompal made a phone call informing that the deceased had died. Thereafter FIR was lodged.

5. Trial court framed charges against the respondent which he denied and sought trial.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1, Preetam Singh, the informant; PW-2, Chamanpal; PW-3, Anil Jain; PW-4, Tek Chandra; PW-5 Dr. Yashveer Sigh, PW-6, Shwetabh Pandey (Circle Officer); PW-7, Contable, Lalit Kuar; PW-8, Boopal Singh (Tehsildar); PW-9, Mahendra Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police; PW-10, Riteh Kumar Singh; PW-11, Shivraj Singh.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that 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.

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. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. We find that the trial court has found that death of the deceased did not took place in any abnormal circumstances. She died after consuming organo chloro insecticide poison. Witnesses had not admitted that they gave any dowry or goods to the deceased and the family members of matrimonial home as admitted by PW-3. There was no evidence after returning from her matrimonial home after 7-8 days of living there, she did not made any complaint regarding demand of dowry in her parental home. The trial court has also found that the victim was not subjected to any cruelty or harassment prior to her death. After considering the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, PW-3 had never met the deceased after her marriage. No injury whatsoever found on her body indicative to any harassment of cruelty is meted out to her. The trial court has found that prosecution has failed to prove that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to any cruelty connected with demand of dowry.

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 week.

Order Date :- 20.5.2025

Ruchi Agrahari

(Madan Pal Singh,J.) (Siddharth, J.)