Uttarakhand High Court
Anju Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 13 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on: 07.05.2025
Judgment delivered on: 13.06.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Reviosion No.271 of 2013
Anju Singh .....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
With
Criminal Reviosion No.272 of 2013
Anju Singh ….. Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another …..Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned D.A.G. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent-
Sunil Kumar.
Mr. Vinod Chandra, learned counsel for respondent-
Satish Kumar.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
Since common question of law is involved in
both the Criminal Revisions, hence, they are taken up
and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of
brevity, the facts of CRLR No.271 of 2013 are taken into
consideration.
2. These criminal revisions are preferred by the
revisionist assailing the judgment and order dated
31.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Criminal
Complaint No.12 of 2011 Anju Vs. Sunil Kumar and Ors.,
whereby, the respondent-Satish Kumar was acquitted of
the charge under Section 406 IPC, as well as the
2
judgment and order dated 23.08.2013 passed by learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal
Appeal No.182 of 2011 Sunil Vs. Anju Singh and Ors. Vs.
Minshun Kumar and another, and Criminal Appeal
No.183 of 2011 Anju Vs. State and Others, whereby, the
Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2011 preferred by appellant-
Sunil Kumar was allowed and the Criminal Appeal
No.183 of 2011 preferred by appellant-Anju was rejected
and the judgment and order dated 31.10.2011 was set
aside in respect of respondent-Sunil Kumar and he was
also acquitted of the charge under Section 406 IPC
3. The facts in brief are that the revisionist/
complainant was married to one-Sunil Kumar on
17.03.1996 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. She
lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate Roorkee stating that the accused persons
were criminally misappropriating her Streedhan given to
her by her relatives at the time of marriage. She alleged
that different members of her matrimonial house had
confiscated different items given to her as Streedhan. On
the basis of above complaint, the learned Judicial
Magistrate Roorkee, took cognizance and later, the case
was submitted to learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, who conducted the trial. During
trial, two accused persons, namely, Bhopal Singh and
Smt. Gargi Devi died and the trial was abated against
them. The learned Trial Court acquitted Satish Kumar for
the charge under Section 406 IPC and convicted Sunil
Kumar for the charge under Section 406 IPC and
sentenced him for one year’s imprisonment, vide its
judgment and order dated 31.10.2011. The revisionist/
complainant filed an appeal in the Court of learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, assailing
3
the acquittal of Satish Kumar and inadequacy of
sentence meted out to Sunil Kumar. The learned
Appellate Court below upheld the acquittal of Satish
Kumar and also acquitted Sunil Kumar of the charge
under Section 406 IPC. Hence, the revisionist approached
this Court.
4. During trial, as many as two witnesses were
produced by the prosecution to prove its case. Thereafter,
the statements of respondents/accused persons were
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which, they
denied the complainant’s story and stated that they were
being falsely implicated. The learned Trial Court at the
end of trial acquitted Satish Kumar and convicted Sunil
Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
The learned Appellate Court below upheld the acquittal of
Satish Kumar and also reversed the conviction of Sunil
Kumar.
5. In this matter, the learned Courts below
disbelieved the story of prosecution on the grounds that
the alleged gifts gifted to revisionist at the time of
marriage were only supported by bare statements of the
complainant and her father and no list of gifts as
mandated by Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
(Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and
Bridegroom) Rules 1985 was produced. As the
prosecution failed to prove the lists of giving of gifts,
therefore, the learned Trial Court opined that no question
of misappropriation could arise. The learned Appellate
Court below disbelieved the story of prosecution on the
same grounds and went on to reverse the conviction of
Sunil Kumar thereby acquitting him.
6. Heard and perused the Trial Court Record very
carefully with the help of learned counsel for the parties.
4
The finding recoded by the learned Trial Court is quite
convincing and needs no interference.
7. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The
respondents have been acquitted. In revision against
acquittal, it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
judgments that the Courts should be slow in interfering
with the judgments of acquittal, as the innocence of the
accused is further re-enforced by his acquittal. As the
scope of revision is very limited, unless and until there is
perversity in the judgment of acquittal, the same should
not be interfered with.
8. It is trite law that that while hearing the
revision against acquittal, the power of reviewing
evidence must be exercised with great care and caution,
particularly so when under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C,
expressly prohibits learned High Court to convert a
finding of acquittal into that of conviction. I am fortified
in my view by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Bindeshwari Prasad @ B.P. Singh Vs. State of
Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in 2002 (6) SCC 650.
For the sake of convenience, paragraph no.12 of the said
judgment is quoted below:-
“12. We have carefully considered the material on record and
we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re-
appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different
conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant
under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-
section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing
in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The
aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers
of the revisional court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of
acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature
and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it
could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It
is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the
High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order
of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of
public justice requires interference for the correction of a
manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of
5justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an
order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a
wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence.
It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of
circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may
be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the
parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High
Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an
appeal against acquittal by a private party.”
9. The learned Trial Court and learned Appellate
Court below had passed an elaborate judgment for
recording the finding of acquittal and this Court does not
want to reiterate the same for the sake of repetition. The
instant case is not one where any such illegality was
committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal
infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the
trial, there is no justification for the High Court to
interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Learned
counsel for the revisionist could not point out any ground
so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed
by the learned Trial Court.
10. For the aforesaid reasons and following the
dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am also of the
considered view that no ground for interference, at all, is
made out in this matter, as there is no illegality and
perversity in the impugned judgment and order.
11. Both the revisions are bereft of merit and are
accordingly dismissed.
12. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the
learned Trial Court for consignment.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
13.06.2025
PN