Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 291 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Dharmendra Singh

2020-01-27

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned A.A.G. for the State-appellant and perused the material on record. 2. The application has been filed by the State-appellant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Agra, in Sessions Trial No.925 of 1999, State Vs. Dharmendra and others arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 1999, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC, Police Station Basoni, District Agra whereby the accused-respondents Dharmendra Singh, Hawaldar Singh and Chameli Devi have been acquitted of charge under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. whereas accused-respondents Dharmendra Singh, Raj Kumar, Ravindra Singh, Santosh and Nand Kishore have been acquitted of charge under Section 201 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution version, as is apparent from the impugned judgment makes it evident that the written report was lodged by the informant Promod Kumar against the present accused-respondents under Section 498, 304B, 201 I.P.C. alleging therein that he got his sister Somwati wedded Dharmendra Singh on 11.07.1994. In the marriage, he gifted Rs.40000/-, television, stitching machine, fan, double bed, so faset, gas oven, wrist watch, wall watch and utensils etc. After passage of time, a scooter was demanded from in-laws side. His sister was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of scooter. Therefore, the informant's sister being perplexed, wrote a letter to her father. On receipt of the letter, when informant's father went there, she told the entire incident who took her to his home and got her educated up to class XII. In the meanwhile, though the in-laws side came to take his sister giving assurance that there will be no problem but his sister was subject to cruelty because of non-fulfillment of demand of scooter, the oral as well as written information whereof was given by his sister. Thereafter, on 27.06.199, Dharmendra, Hawaldar Singh and Chameli wife of Hawaldar Singh murdered his sister and caused disappearance of the body of his sister. This report is Ext. Ka-5. 4. Record further reveals that contents of the written information were taken down in the concerned Check FIR at Case Crime No.28 of 1999 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C., at Police Station Basoni, District Agra. Check FIR is Ext. Ka-7. This report is Ext. Ka-5. 4. Record further reveals that contents of the written information were taken down in the concerned Check FIR at Case Crime No.28 of 1999 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C., at Police Station Basoni, District Agra. Check FIR is Ext. Ka-7. On the basis of entries so made in the check F.I.R., a case was registered against the accused-respondents in the relevant G.D. at aforesaid case crime number at Police Station Basoni, under aforesaid sections of I.P.C. against accused-respondents. General diary copy is Ext. Ka-8. 5. The investigation ensued and the Investigating Officer took note of all materials, completed investigation and filed charge sheet (Ext. Ka-11) against the accused-respondents under Section 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C., whereupon the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 6. In the trial, accused-respondent Dharmendra Singh was charged for offence under sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C., accused-respondents Hawaldar Singh and Chameli Devi were charged for offence under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. whereas accused-respondents Raj Kumar, Ravindra Singh, Santosh and Nand Kishore were charged for offence under Sections 201 I.P.C. Charge was read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution in an endeavour to establish the above charge examined Pramod Kumar PW-1, Hem Singh PW-2, Smt. Shanti PW-3, Head Constable Ramveer Sharma PW-4, and the Investigating Officer, Ghanshyam Chaurasiya PW-5 besides proving relevant papers which have been elaborately dealt with in the impugned judgment by the trial court. 8. No more evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused-respondents was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein though they admitted the solemnization of marriage of the informant's sister Somwati with Dharmendra Singh but they denied demand of dowry and their involvement in the incident by saying that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The defence produced Chhotey Singh DW-1 and Dr. Birendra Kumar Garg DW-2. Thereafter, evidence for the defence was also closed and the case was posted for arguments. 9. The trial court after churning the entire facts and evidence recorded findings to the effect that testimony of the prosecution witnesses is full of contradictions and discrepancies and the same is not credible evidence. Testimony of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence. Thereafter, evidence for the defence was also closed and the case was posted for arguments. 9. The trial court after churning the entire facts and evidence recorded findings to the effect that testimony of the prosecution witnesses is full of contradictions and discrepancies and the same is not credible evidence. Testimony of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence. Therefore, the trial court acquitted accused-respondents from all the charges. Hence this government appeal. 10. Learned A.A.G. for the State has submitted that as per charge and circumstances stated, the first information report was lodged by the informant on 01.07.1999 regarding dowry death being caused to the victim Somwati who was wedded to Dharmendra Singh on 11.07.1994. The basic allegation was regarding non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It being so, there was ample proof of dowry death having been taken place within seven years of marriage. Factum of unnatural death, cruelty being perpetrated by the in-laws of the deceased was established, thus all the ingredients enshrined under Section 304B I.P.C. were very much attracted in this case still the trial court working on whims and conjectures by erroneous analogy and appraisal of facts and evidence on record recorded acquittal of the aforesaid accused which is not justified in the eye of law, for the reason that the burden of proof was primarily on the prosecution to the extent that the factum of the marriage, demand of dowry, perpetration of cruelty, and unnatural death was required to be proved which elements were proved reasonably and satisfactorily before the trial court. However, the trial court of its own supplemented reasoning which was not admissible and applicable to the scattered facts and circumstances of the case. 11. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the judgment impugned in this appeal. The moot point involved for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the trial court based its finding of acquittal without any material? 12. In this context, we find that the accused have been acquitted of charges levelled against them. The core contention raised on behalf of the accused-respondents is whether all the ingredients as contained under Section 304B I.P.C. were established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In this context, we find that the accused have been acquitted of charges levelled against them. The core contention raised on behalf of the accused-respondents is whether all the ingredients as contained under Section 304B I.P.C. were established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. In that regard, there is specific finding primarily on the point of unnatural death being caused to the deceased Somwati which point has not been proved satisfactorily as the evidence on record very much suggests finding arrived by the trial court. 13. Similarly, the point of demand of dowry and perpetration of cruelty has not been established by the prosecution. As per evidence, the demand raised from the deceased and her family was specifically regarding a scooter. The trial court has exhaustively dealt with the aforesaid aspect of the case and also taken note of several guidelines issued in several cases by Hon'ble Apex Court and these citations were discussed in paragraph no.11 of the judgment impugned in this appeal. 14. As per the settled law, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding commission of offence is sufficient for convicting a person but in case where doubt is generated because of testimony and circumstances of the case regarding trustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses then right course open is to have some independent corroboration, which is missing in this case. In this regard we are in agreement with the finding so recorded by the trial court. 15. Before parting with judgment, it would be relevant to take note of fact that we after careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment discover no perversity in the judgment of trial court. We are fully conscious of fact that presumption of innocence is available to the accused even up to this appellate stage which got strengthened by order of acquittal in favour of accused by the trial court. Thus the view taken by the trial court in recording finding of acquittal is just and reasonable. Even if other view is possible it would not be proper to substitute our own view in place of finding recorded by the trial court. This approach is to be avoided and the view as taken by the trial court has got to be affirmed. This rationale/principle has been enunciated in detail in Bhadragiri Venketa Ravi Vs. Pubic Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 2013 (4) Supreme 450 . 16. This approach is to be avoided and the view as taken by the trial court has got to be affirmed. This rationale/principle has been enunciated in detail in Bhadragiri Venketa Ravi Vs. Pubic Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 2013 (4) Supreme 450 . 16. Similarly, in Kanhaiya Lal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 1940 , Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the court should keep in view the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused as the same gets fortified by his acquittal if the view taken by the trial court is well grounded and based on material on record. 17. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we see no infirmity latent or patent in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court. We are, accordingly, not inclined to interfere with the judgment and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge in respect of the accused-respondents. The instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. Leave to appeal is thus refused. 18. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. 19. Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned.