Indar Rastogi vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10328 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Indar Rastogi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 September, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth, Santosh Rai

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:160489-DB
 

 
  
 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD  
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 360 of 2025   
 
   Indar Rastogi    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Jagdish Prasad Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Amit Daga, G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 47
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.  

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-Ist for the State; Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the acquittal of the opposite party no.2 and to convict the opposite party no.2 in S.T. No. 494 of 2018 (State Vs. Ankur Jain and another), under section 498-A, 304-B, 201 of IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffarnagar, arising out of case crime no. 203/2018.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are, that the complainant, Inder Rastogi, stated in his complaint that his sister, Sarika, was married to Anku Jain s/o Shri Tilak Jain, on 14th November, 2014. Complainant's mother and father had spent a sum of Rs.10-12,00,00 lakhs and arranged for the dowry much more than their financial capacity. But complainant's, sister's, in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given. Because of this reason they used to harass his sister. Her in-laws made a demand of Rs.10,00,000/-(Ten Lakh) on 11.02.2018. Complainant and his family members were unable to fulfil this demand of Rs.10 lakh. The incident is of 14.02.2018 in the afternoon at about 1.30 p.m., when Sarika was suffocated to death by her mother-in-law, Rekha Jain, husband Ankur Jain, and some unknown persons. On hearing hue and cry, the neighbours saw the incident and informed the police on hundred number immediately. Police reached the place of occurrence immediately and saw his sister Sarika lying dead on the bed. Sarika has a son aged three years, namely Satyam. It is to inform you that complainant's sister's husband, Ankur Jain, had given her beatings on previous occasions also. Police action was also taken but accused persons did not mend their ways. It is humbly requested that, considering the seriousness of the incident, a report may kindly be registered against the accused persons.

4. It is on this complaint that an FIR bearing number 0203/2018 was registered against accused persons, Ankur Jain and Rekha Jain under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on 14.02.2018.

5. Thereafter charge sheet bearing number 01/2018 with case crime number 203/2018 was filed against accused Ankur Jain and Rekha Jain on 11.03.2018 under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court of CJM at, Muzaffarnagar took cognizance of the offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 05.04.2018, after compliance of section 209, Crpc 1973.

6 Charges were framed in the matter against accused persons by the Ld. Sessions Court on 13.08.2018 under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Alternate charge under section 302 IPC was also framed against the accused persons.

7. To prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses i.e PW-1 Inder Rastogi, PW-2 Seema Gupta, PW-3 Shiv Avtar Singh Tehsildar, PW-4 Deepak Rastogi, PW-5 Dr.Kunal, PW-6 CO Harish Singh Bhadoria, PW-7, lady Constable 1379 Kanchan, PW-8, Dr.Ajay Kumar.

8. The accused persons produced two defence witnesses namely DW-1 Anuj Bansal S/O Suresh Chand Bansal and DW-2 Vijay Kumar alias Tony S/O Ishwar Dayal.

9. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed error in acquitting the respondent no.2 of all charges when the trial court has found that it can be a case of strangulation. He has further argued that the respondent no.2 being mother-in-law of the deceased was also required to be convicted and sentenced like the co-accused, Ankur Jain.

10. The trial court has not considered the evidence of witnesses, who fully supported the prosecution version. Therefore, acquittal order passed by the trial court is liable to be quashed.

11. 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.

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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."

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. We find that the trial court has considered the material on record and arrived at the conclusion that the respondent no.2 was not residing with the couple. She was residing separately on ground floor of the house and also had separate kitchen. The trial court did not found any credible evidence to hold that the respondent no.2 was involved in the commission of the alleged offence. However, the trial court has convicted the son of the respondent no.2 and husband of the deceased, Ankur Jain, and sentenced him to maximum punishment of 10 years under all sections alongwith fine on the ground that he was residing with the deceased and he failed to explain how and under what circumstances, deceased died while living with him. As per section 106 of Evidence Act, he failed to discharge the burden cast on him to explain how the deceased died.

20. The case of respondent no.2 was found to be different from the co-accused, Ankur Jain, and she has been acquitted by the trial court.

21. We do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court.

22. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the trial court with regard to the acquittal of the respondent no.2 is hereby affirmed.

23. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

24. The trial court record shall be retained by the office and attached to the pending Criminal Appeal No. 4998/2025.

(Santosh Rai,J.) (Siddharth,J.)

September 10, 2025/Abhishek