Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ajay on 6 July, 2021
Author: Sheel Nagu
1 MCRC 5453 of 2021
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC 5453 of 2021
(State of MP vs. Ajay and three others)
Gwalior, Dtd. 06/07/2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri A.K.Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor for applicant/
State.
Shri Rajesh Pathak, learned Counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal:
The present application under Section 378(3) CrPC has
been preferred by State for leave to appeal against judgment of
acquittal dated 05/11/2020, passed by First Additional Sessions
Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in ST No.11/2018, whereby
respondents have been acquitted of offences under Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A, 304-B or 302/34 or
306 of IPC.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Arti Devi was
married to accused Ajay Sharma (respondent No.1 herein) in 2015.
On 10/10/2017 at about 12:05 am, cousin brother of deceased
Santosh Sharma informed police station Endori, District Bhind that
Arti Devi died by hanging herself at about 05:00 in the morning.
On the basis of this information, Merg u/S. 174 of CrPC was
recorded and matter was enquired. During Merg enquiry, father of
deceased Vinod Sharma, Harish Sharma, Siyaram Sharma, Girraj
and Krishna Swaroop Sharma were present. In their statements
2 MCRC 5453 of 2021
they narrated that deceased Arti Devi died by hanging herself, but
did not allege anything against the accused persons. Autopsy of the
body of deceased was conducted and doctor opined that deceased
died by hanging herself. Statements of witnesses were recorded.
Afterwards, Crime against accused Ajay Sharma, Damodar,
Krishna Swaroop alias Kallu Prasad and Smt. Aruna (respondents
herein) was registered for offence u/S. 304-B/34 of IPC and under
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Viscera was sent for
medical examination. As per viscera report, there was no poisonous
substance in the viscera of the deceased. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were framed.
Prosecution witnesses Santosh Sharma (PW1), Pyarelal
Sharma (PW2), Harish Sharma (PW3) in their statements before
the trial Court stated that accused Ajay Sharma and his family
members used to harass and torture the deceased with regard to
demand of dowry of motorcycle, but father of deceased Vinod
Sharma (PW5) has not supported their version, which he ought to
have supported, if as alleged by these witnesses the story was
correct. This witness, in his statement, denied that accused persons
demanded dowry and accused Ajay Sharma used to come to the
house after consuming liquor and commit Marpeet with the
deceased and demand motorcycle. This witness also denied that
mother-in-law of deceased Smt. Aruna, father-in-law of deceased
Kallu Prasad, father-in-law (Chachiya Sasur) of deceased Damodar
used to support accused Ajay Sharma to treat the deceased with
3 MCRC 5453 of 2021
cruelty. Further, this witness specifically denied that due to
demand of dowry, his daughter was subjected to cruelty. Apart
from the above, the prosecution has utterly failed to produce
evidence of real sisters of deceased Smt. Sangeeta and Smt. Rubi
and aunt of deceased namely Smt. Billa, who were important
witnesses. No explanation in this regard was given by the
prosecution.
The scope of interference against the acquittal of criminal
charges is extremely limited as explained by the Apex Court in the
case of Hakeem Khan and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. reported in
(2017) 5 SCC 719, relevant portion of which is reproduced below
for convenience and ready reference :-
12. For all these reasons, we are of the considered
opinion that the High Court clearly fell in grave
error in setting aside the acquittal in the present
case. We have to remind ourselves that the law on
reversal of acquittals is well settled and is stated
in many judgments, but one of them needs to be
quoted here. In Murugesan Vs. State (2012) 10
SCC 383 this court went into the meaning of
different expressions- "erroneous", "wrong" and
"possible", and has stated the law as follows:-
33. The expressions "erroneous", "wrong"
and "possible" are defined in Oxford
English Dictionary in the following terms:
"erroneous.- wrong; incorrect. Wrong.- (1)
not correct or true, mistaken. (2)unjust,
dishonest, or immoral.
Possible.- (1) capable of existing,
happening, or being achieved.
(2) that may exist or happen, but that is not
certain or probable.
34. It will be necessary for us to emphasise
that a possible view denotes an opinion
which can exist or be formed irrespective of
the correctness or otherwise of such an
opinion. A view taken by a court lower in
the hierarchical structure may be termed as
4 MCRC 5453 of 2021
erroneous or wrong by a superior court
upon a mere disagreement. But such a
conclusion of the higher court would not
take the view rendered by the subordinate
court outside the arena of a possible view.
The correctness or otherwise of any
conclusion reached by a court has to be
tested on the basis of what the superior
judicial authority perceives to be the
correct conclusion. A possible view, on the
other hand, denotes a conclusion which can
reasonably be arrived at regardless of the
fact whether it is agreed upon or not by the
higher court. The fundamental distinction
between the two situations have to be kept
in mind. So long as the view taken by the
trial court can be reasonably formed,
regardless of whether the High Court
agrees with the same or not, the view taken
by the trial court cannot be interdicted and
that of the High Court supplanted over and
above the view of the trial court."
Looking to the prosecution evidence available on record, this
Court does not find it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The
trial Court has rightly acquitted accused (respondents herein) under
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A, 304-
B or 302/34 or 306 of IPC.
Accordingly, this application for leave to appeal against
judgment of acquittal dated 05/11/2020 passed by First Additional
Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in ST No.11/2018 is hereby
dismissed.
(Sheel Nagu) (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
Judge Judge
MKB
Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK
MAHENDRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
KUMAR BARIK 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9e3451ee
450d883083a8e4cc8020eee6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA
KUMAR BARIK
Date: 2021.07.08 11:05:58 +05'30'
