High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120909-DB Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 192 of 2024 Appellant :- Mohd Idrees Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth, J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgement and acquittal order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Etawah in Sessions Trial No.143 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.672 of 2016, thereby the learned trial court has acquitted respondent nos.2 to 5 of the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Legal Reasoning
3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the FIR are that on 10.01.2014, the complainant, Mohd, Idrees performed the marriage of his daughter, Sharbat Ara with Kayadat Ali of Jabalpur, M.P. according to the Muslim Rights and ceremonies. The marriage was attended by mother Anwari Chaudhary @ Ambar Apa, brother Arsh Ali Chaudhary, Abrar Ali Chaudhary and Ibadat Ali Chaudhary. The marriage took place at Dipu Chaudhary Utsav Garden, Etawah. The complainant spent in the marriage as per his capacity, but despite that the in-laws were not happy with the given articles in the marriage. On Chauthi, the daughter of the complainant visited his house and she told to him and family members that the in-laws used to taunt her for not giving the modern electronic items and furniture. The complainant after one month of the marriage, again purchased some articles and modern furniture like Double Bed, Dining Table,
Legal Reasoning
Sofa set, Shringardani and sent to the house of son-in- law, where he was then posted. After living normal life for sometime, they again under the conspiracy started harassing the daughter of the complainant for demanding a Car. Under the compelling circumstances, the complainant purchased a Car in the name of son-in-law. Even after giving the Car, the in-laws did not keep his daughter happy. They had an eye on the plot of the complainant at Lucknow. Recently, they have thrown the daughter of the complainant from the house of Meerut. On 25.09.2016, all the in-laws visited the house of the complainant at 12 PM and asked to send his daughter back. The complainant made them sit in the drawing room of his house and the daughter of the complainant was also along with them in the drawing room. After some time, screaming was heard by the complainant from the drawing room, on which the complainant and his wife rushed towards drawing room and saw that their daughter was lying on the floor and their son-in-law was trying to strangulate their daughter with Dupatta. The complainant intervened, then the in-laws of the daughter beaten up him as well, on which they received injuries. On hearing the noise and cry, neighbours viz. Harendra Singh, Mohd. Muvin, Tilak Singh, Islam, Raes gathered and when the neighbours of the complainant retaliated against the in-laws of his daughter, the complainant pacified them that they were his relatives. Thereafter, all the in-laws left the house of the complainant. The complainant and his daughter were examined by the doctor and the doctor's report was attached. The complainant, thereafter, tried to talk to in-laws of his daughter, but seeing the conduct and behaviour of the in-laws, the complainant understood that they will not keep his daughter in their house. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid written Tehrir, FIR was lodged in Case Crime No.672 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was investigated by the investigating Officer, who after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused- respondents under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of sessions on 05.05.2017. Charges were framed under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307, 149 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused-respondents. Accused-respondents denied the charges and pleaded for trial. 5. The prosecution to prove its case, produced the following six witnesses:- P.W.-1 Mohd. Idris (complainant) P.W.-2 Mohd. Sami (employee of P.W.-1) P.W.-3 Sharbat Ara (victim) P.W.-4 Mangal Singh (doctor) P.W.-5 Dr. Ravi Shankar (doctor) P.W.-6 S.H.O. Satish (I.O.) P.W.-7 C.C. Kishpal Singh (FIR writer) 6. 7 exhibits were also produced by the prosecution to prove its case. 7. Accused-respondents were confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the charges and deposed that they were falsely implicated in the case. The accused-respondents were produced D.W.-1, Masoom Khan and D.W.-2 Sheikh Abdul Shamim to support their case. 8. The trial court after examining the witnesses and adducing the evidence on record, acquitted the accused- respondents as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant under Section 372 Cr.P.C. 9. P.Ws.-1, 2 and 3 are the fact witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case, whereas other witnesses i.e. P.Ws.4 to 7 are formal witnesses. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the trial court while acquitting respondents no.2 to 5 has not considered the statements of witnesses of fact and the evidence on record in a correct perspective. He further submits that the medical evidence fully corroborates with the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3 and also with their statements, but the trial court has ignored all these material facts while acquitting respondents no.2 to 5. Therefore, the trial court has committed grave error in acquitting respondents no.2 to 5. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 12. The record reveals that allegation is made to the extent that P.Ws.1 and 3 were injured on 25.09.2016, who were examined by the private doctors and the doctors found multiple abrasions on the body of P.Ws.1 and 3. Injuries were simple in nature and were fresh. P.W.-4, Dr. Mangal Singh in his cross-examination stated before the trial court that patient was not admitted. The injuries found on the body of the injured were not much painful. P.W.-5, Dr. Ravi Shankar, in his cross- examination stated that injury or abrasion might have been caused by friction and he could not tell that whether the injuries could have been caused by stick or rope. The deposition of the private doctors do not serve any sound basis to draw the culpable intention of the accused persons to cause murder of P.W.-3. It also does not indicate that the said injuries were inflicted in order to commit murder. 13. The Investigating Officer did not collect the evidence of CCTV footage installed in the neighbourhood house of P.Ws.1 and 3, by which the presence of the accused could be ascertained. The prosecution also did not recover Dupatta used for strangulation. The police did not investigate the mobile tracking of the accused persons to show their presence in Etawah. 14. P.W.-1 denied the suggestion that on 25.09.2016, Arsh Ali was in Nagpur. Further, suggestion was denied regarding Abrar Ali, who was on official tour at Himachal Pradesh from 22.09.2016 to 27.09.2016. P.W.-1 deposed that he did not know that Ibadat Ali was Advocate and he was at Jabalpur on 25.09.2016. He further denied that Anwari Chaudhary, old lady, was at Jabalpur on the date of incident. He deposed that his statement was recorded after the incident between 03.10.2016 to 05.10.2016 by the police. The presence of accused persons has not been corroborated by any other evidence. 15. There is inconsistency in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief stated that his daughter was lying on the floor and his son-in-law was trying to strangulate his daughter with Dupatta, which is stated in Tehrir (Ext.Ka-1). P.W.-3 has stated that on the instigation of her mother-in-law, all sons tried to strangulate her with Dupatta. Statement of P.W.-1 and Tehrir (Ext.Ka-1) exonerated other in-laws from strangulation and made allegation of strangulation against son-in-law, whereas P.W.-3 made allegation of strangulation against all the in-laws. This is not minor contradiction, rather prosecution case is improved or exaggerated. 16. D.W.-1 Masoom Khan has stated in his testimony that on 25.09.2016 Kayadat Ali was with him and they visited to Narsingpur in the day time and came to Jabalpur at 7 PM. D.W.-2, Sheikh Abdul Shamim has stated that Arsh Ali and Abrar Ali are Government servants. 17. The trial court has recorded a finding that in the light of above observation and the version of all the three fact witnesses that the accused persons visited their house for resolving the dispute related to the marriage and there is no much sound basis to draw the ill intention of the accused persons to cause murder of P.W.-3. The dispute is between husband and wife. There is no previous enmity with them. Husband and wife have resided together for about two years and there is no report of any physical assault in the complaint. There appears to be no intention of accused persons to commit murder of P.W.-3. There is no cogent evidence to prove the charges levelled under Section 307/149 IPC or attempt to murder, therefore, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted from the charges under Section 307/149 IPC. The trial court has further recorded a finding that charges under Sections 498A and 323 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are established beyond reasonable doubt against husband Kayadat Ali, who has been convicted. 18. The reasons recorded by the trial court are based on evidence on record and there is no illegality or infirmity in it. Unless there is any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court, this Court cannot interfere in it. Thus, the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial court needs no interference. 19. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Siddharth, J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Rao/-