Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 231 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. ASHA

2017-01-17

HARSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Lalitpur in S.T. No.18 of 2014 "State of U.P. Vs. Km. Asha", acquitting the accused-respondent from the charges of offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 2. Learned A.G.A. contended that as per F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Amita Yadav her son Vinay Yadav was in service of Indian Railway at Mathura Junction station and was trapped by the accused-respondent in love affair with her, who taken her to Delhi, Gurgaon and then brought to Lalitpur; that Vinay Yadav had taken away a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- cash, ear-rings, ring and Mangalsutra with him and that the respondent pressurized him for making marriage with her but since her son was not ready for marriage, he was tortured by the respondent, because of which he committed suicide; that the charges under Section 306 I.P.C. were framed against the accused-respondent and in order to prove the charges the prosecution had produced Smt. Amita Yadav and Chaudhary Maange Singh, the mother and father of deceased as P.W.-1 & P.W.-2, Manoj Kumar, the friend of deceased as P.W.-3 apart from formal witnesses i.e. Medical Officer Dr. Raj Narayan, who conducted the post-mortem, Head Constable Amar Singh, S.I. Ram Autar and S.I. Shamshad Khan, the Investigating Officer as P.W.-4 to P.W.-7; that it was proved from the evidence on record that son of first informant committed suicide on account of abetment caused by the accused-respondent and so the learned trial court acted wrongly and illegally in acquitting the accused; that learned trial court acted wrongly in disbelieving the prosecution evidence and misread the evidence on record. 3. Upon hearing learned A.G.A. and perusal of record of appeal as well as the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, I find that learned trial court has discussed the evidence on record in detail with every minute aspect of the evidence. The evidence on record shows that there is no whisper of any talk between the accused-respondent and deceased and there is nothing on record to show that by which 'action' or by which 'words' the accused-respondent caused abetment or to instigated the deceased for committing suicide. The evidence on record shows that there is no whisper of any talk between the accused-respondent and deceased and there is nothing on record to show that by which 'action' or by which 'words' the accused-respondent caused abetment or to instigated the deceased for committing suicide. The allegations made in F.I.R. regarding the love affair between the deceased and the accused-respondent do not show that the deceased was not ready to make marriage with accused-respondent and there is nothing to show on account of pressure allegedly made by accused-respondent, for the marriage, he could have committed suicide particularly in view of the allegations made in the F.I.R. to the effect that he had taken away a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- apart from the ornaments, ear-rings, ring and Mangalsutra. Moreover, even if it may be presumed for the sake of arguments that he was not ready for making marriage with the accused-respondent, there is nothing on record to show that which 'words' were used by the accused-respondent or what action was made by her or in what manner she caused any degree of abetment or instigation to commit suicide by the son of first informant, on account of which he actually committed suicide. In any case if at all, he was not willing to make marriage with the accused-respondent, despite having love for her due to which he had taken away money and ornaments from home, and committed suicide without any abetment or instigation from the accused-respondent, she may not be held responsible for causing abetment to commit suicide by the deceased Vinay Yadav. 4. Upon hearing the learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, I find that there is no iota of evidence to show that for any reason whatsoever or in any manner the accused/respondent committed any degree of abetment, instigating the Vinay Yadav, the son of first informant to commit suicide. There is not even any dying declaration of the deceased indicating the alleged abetment by the accused-respondent. 5. In 2009 (1) L.Cr.R. 283 (SC) in the case of Anand Kumar Vs. There is not even any dying declaration of the deceased indicating the alleged abetment by the accused-respondent. 5. In 2009 (1) L.Cr.R. 283 (SC) in the case of Anand Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court has held that "in case of death of woman within seven years of marriage ---for presumption of abetment, considering the use of word "may" and regard to other circumstances under Section 113A as against "shall" in 113B ---held that is not correct to say that onus heavily shifts on accused as in case of dowry death." 6. In 2010 (4) Crimes 101 (SC) in the case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay K. Mahajan, the Apex Court has held that "abetment involves a mental process of instigation or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing---without a positive act by accused as above---conviction cannot be sustained.---Ingredients of abetment not attracted merely on statement of deceased." 7. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified;". 8. In view of the discussions made above, I find that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, legal infirmity or non-consideration/mis-appropriation of evidence on record and the findings recorded in the judgment of trial court are not perverse. The learned A.G.A. has failed to show any perversity in the impugned order of acquittal which may require any interference for setting aside the order of acquittal by substituting it with order of conviction. 9. The appeal has no force and so the application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed, accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to court below.