Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Surendra Pratap @ Devkinandan And … on 16 January, 2025
Bench: Siddharth, Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7695-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 562 of 2024 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Surendra Pratap @ Devkinandan And Another Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon’ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. Nil of 2024
1. Heard Mr. G.N. Kanojia, learned A.G.A.-I for the appellant and perused the record.
2. The above noted government appeal is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 06.04.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IX, District- Aligarh, in Sessions Trial No. 691 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Surendra Pratap @ Devkinandan and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2019, under Sections- 304-B, 323, 498-A IPC and Section 302 IPC which was made in alternate as well as section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Vijaygarh, District- Aligarh.
3. The prosecution story is that informant, Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Jwala Prasad, R/o Usayani Police Station- Tundla, District- Firozabad lodged a report before S.H.O., Police Station- Vijaygarh, District- Aligarh, to the effect that he got his daughter, Chanchal, married to Surendra Pratap @Devkinandan. He spent more than 22 lacs in marriage but despite this her-in-laws family was not satisfied and used to demand additional dowry and used to beat her for non-fulfillment demand of additional dowry. On 11.08.2018 he received information from a villager that today Surendra Pratap @ Devkinandan, husband of deceased and Rambobu and Omveer have killed his daughter by hanging her. He came to the matrimonial home on the information received and gave application for lodging F.I.R.
4. F.I.R. was lodged against accused persons at Police Station- Vijaynagar, District- Aligarh, being Case Crime No. 99 of 2019 under Sections- 498A, 304B, 323 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. The case was registered and investigation was done by the Investigating Officer of the rank of Circle Officer. Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan at the instance of the informant. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused respondents before the Court of C.J.M., Aligarh and thereafter learned Magistrate took cognizance upon the said Charge sheet on 15.11.2019 and committed the matter to Court of Session, Aligarh on 09.12.2019.
6. Thereafter, accused appeared before the Court on 16.01.2021 and charge was framed against them under Sections- 498-A, 323, 304-B of I.P.C. and alternative charge under Section- 302 IPC and also framed to which the accused-respondents pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
7. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 12 witnesses in the form of PW-1, Informant/Complainant, Omprakash; PW-2, Suresh; PW-3, Satyaprakash; PW-4, Myank Baghel; PW-5, Ankit; PW-6, Govind Singh; PW-7, Mahendra Singh; PW-8, S.I. Shivnandan; PW-9, Yogesh Pratap Singh; PW-10, Dr. J.M. Sharma; PW-11, Devi Gulam and PW-12, S.I. Deshraj Singh.
8. Trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.
10. 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.
11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.”
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of record, this court finds that there was no evidence on record proving that deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Trial court has found that there was 14 years of age difference between the deceased and her husband and she was not happy with her marriage and hence she committed suicide by way of hanging. Trial court did not found any evidence in the form of any complaint made to any authority with regard to the deceased being subjected to demand of dowry prior to her death. No other injury was found on a person which may indicate that she was subjected to any cruelty in connection with demand of dowry.
19. The judgment of the trial court is well considered and learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court.
20. Leave to appeal application is rejected.
Order on Government Appeal No. 562 of 2024
In view of the fact that leave to appeal application has been rejected, the government appeal is dismissed.
Office is directed to return the record of trial court and this judgment be notified to trial court too within two weeks.
Order Date :- 16.1.2025
Rohit
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) (Siddharth, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link