Uttarakhand High Court
Rakshita Pathak Kandpal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 21 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.337 of 2021
Rakshita Pathak Kandpal ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......... Respondents
None is present for the revisionist.
Ms. Manisha Rana, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1.
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
followings:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 29.11.2019,
passed in Criminal Case No.3599 of
2013, State vs. Dr. Hemant Kandpal and
another, by the court of Civil Judge (Jr.
Div.)/Judicial Magistrate Haldwani,
District Nainital ("the case"). By it, the
respondent nos.2 and 3 ("the accused")
have been acquitted of the charge under
Section 498-A, 323 IPC read with
Sections 34, 504, 506 IPC and Sections
3/4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
("the Act"); and
(ii) The judgment and order dated
10.09.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal
No.14 of 2020, State of Uttarakhand
vs. Dr. Hemant Kandpal and another,
by the court of Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District
Nainital ("the appeal").
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. It is admitted revision, which was admitted on
22.03.2022. Today, a statement was given by the learned
counsel for the accused that both the accused are dead.
Therefore, learned counsel would submit that he may not
represent the accused. Even the revisionist is not present
before the Court.
4. A criminal revision once admitted has to be
decided on merits. In the case of Praban Kumar Mitra vs.
State of West Bengal and another, 1959 Supp.(1) SCR 63,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as hereunder:-
" Whether it was an accused person or it was
a complainant who has moved the High Court in its
revisional jurisdiction, if the High Court has issued a
rule, that rule has to be heard and determined in
accordance with law, whether or not the petitioner in
the High Court is alive or dead, or whether he is
represented in court by a legal practitioner. In
hearing and determining cases under Section 439 of
the Code, the High Court discharges its statutory
function of supervising the administration of justice
on the criminal side."
5. In the case of Madan Lal Kapoor vs. Rajiv
Thapar and others, (2007) 7 SCC 623, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that like criminal appeal criminal
revision cannot be dismissed in default.
6. In view of the settled law, the revision has to
be decided. Therefore, the Court proceeds to examine the
legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned
judgements and orders.
7. The facts necessary to appreciate the
controversy briefly stated are as follows. The revisionist
and the accused Dr. Hemant Kandpal were married on
27.11.2009, but according to the FIR, after marriage, the
revisionist was harassed and tortured in connection with
demand of dowry. A report was given to the SSP, Nainital,
based on which, FIR No.67 of 2013, under Section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Act was
registered and the case investigated. After investigation
charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506
IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Act. The accused appeared in
the case. On 15.09.2014, charge- under Sections 498-A,
323 read with 34, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Act
were framed against the accused.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined five witnesses namely, PW1 Rakshita Kandpal,
PW2 Mahesh Chandra Pathak, PW3 SSI K.C. Arya, PW4
Constable Lalit Punetha and PW5 Investigating Officer.
9. The accused were examined under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code").
According to them, they are innocent and witnesses have
falsely deposed against them. After hearing the parties, by
the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2019,
passed in the case, the accused were acquitted against the
charges levelled against them. The judgment and order was
upheld in the appeal.
10. As stated, accused are stated to have died.
Accused were acquitted by the trial court and the finding
has been upheld in appeal. The law is well settled that
generally, an order of acquittal is not interfered with
because the presumption of innocence of accused further
strengthened by the acquittal. In the case of State of
Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram, (2003)8 SCC 180, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in para 7 observed on this aspect as
hereunder:-
"7. There is no embargo on the appellate
court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of
acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal
shall not be interfered with because the presumption
of innocence of the accused is further strengthened
by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through
the web of 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 the other to his innocence, the view
which is favourable to the accused should be
adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is
to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A
miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal
of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an
innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is
ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to
reappreciate the evidence in a case where the
accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused
committed any offence or not. (See Bhagwan
Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 736 : JT (2002) 3 SC 387) The principle to be
followed by the appellate court considering the appeal
against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only
when there are compelling and substantial reasons
for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly
unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for
interference. These aspects were highlighted by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri)
1033, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat (1996)9 SCC 225 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 972
and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC
484 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 991 : JT (2000) 4 SC 114."
11. Unless there are compelling circumstances and
substantial reasons for making an interference, generally
in the appeal against acquittal, an interference is not
warranted. Moreover, it is not an appeal. It is a revision
because in the appeal the finding of acquittal has been
upheld. The scope of revision is more restricted than the
scope of appeal. Appreciation of evidence is generally
beyond the scope of revision unless material evidences are
ignored or inadmissible evidence is considered or the
finding is perverse and is against the weight of evidence.
12. There are two witnesses of fact in the instant
case. PW1 Rakshita Kandpal has stated that after marriage
the accused Dr. Hemant Kandpal on 28.11.2009, she was
harassed and tortured in connection with demand of
dowry. She has stated quite in detail. PW2 Mahesh
Chandra Pathak is the father of the revisionist. He has
corroborated the statement of the PW1 Rakshita Kandpal
in examination-in-chief. PW3 SSI K.C. Arya has conducted
investigation in this matter. PW4 Constable Lalit Punetha
proved certain documents and PW5 Investigating Officer
has proved the charge-sheet.
13. In the impugned judgment and order, the
Court has extensively discussed the evidence of PW1
Rakshita Kandpal and PW2 Mahesh Chandra Pathak. The
court has scrutinized the statements in the light of cross-
examination. It was found that the parties were well aware
of their social and economic status prior to the marriage.
There was a divorce petition that was filed by the accused
Dr. Hemant Kandpal and it is only thereafter, wnen the
conciliation proceeding failed, PW1 Rakshita Kandpal
lodged an FIR. The court has observed that in order to
pressurize the accused Dr. Hemant Kandpal, the FIR was
lodged in the case. There is no medical evidence. The court
observed that the prosecution has not been able to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is based on the
appreciation of evidence. The appellate court also after
analysing the evidence, found the finding of acquittal
correct and lawful. There is no reason to make any
departure from the finding, recorded by the courts below.
14. Having considered the entire material, this
Court is of the view that there is no illegality, error or
impropriety in the impugned judgments and orders, which
may warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision
deserves to be dismissed.
15. The revision is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
21.03.2024
Sanjay
