High Court

1. Heard Sri Raja Ullah Khan, learned counsel for appellant; Sri G.N. Kanaujia, learned AGA-Ist for State-respondent; Sri Mohd. Irshad, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

2. This Criminal Appeal U/S 372 Cr.P.C., has been preferred praying for setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.06.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court Room No. 42, Shajahanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2021 (State Vs. Ruksad Khand and others) arising out of case crime no. 416 of 2020, under sections 498-A, 304B IPC and alternative charge under section 302/34 IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

3. The prosecution case is that the appellant-informant married his sister to the son of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, namely, Ruksad Khan on 22.03.2019 after giving sufficient dowry, but they were further demanding Rs. 4 lakhs in cash and a generator. In the night of 05.05.2020, the accused murdered the sister of the appellant-informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of aforesaid dowry. On getting information of the incident from pradhan of the village the night at 02:00 a.m., he reached at the place of incident and lodged the F.I.R at 05:13 a.m. against the co-accused, Ruksad and respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are the father and mother of co-accused, Ruksad, who has been convicted and sentenced under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act while the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of all charges.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.

5. 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.

6. 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."

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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."

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. After considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for appellant and perusal of the record, we find that trial court has found that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were residing separately from the couple and, therefore, they have been exonerated. He has further submitted that they were not residing separately, but in the same house and trial court has wrongly held that they were residing separately, in part of the house which was the cattle shed and not the place of living of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

14. The trial court has found that the deceased was residing with the co-accused, Ruksad, and hence it has directed conviction of the aforesaid co-accused and acquitted respondent nos. 2 and 3.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court's judgement is a well merited one, this Court need not re- appreciate the evidences.

16. The criminal appeal appeal is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Abhishek

1. Heard Sri Raja Ullah Khan, learned counsel for appellant; Sri G.N. Kanaujia, learned AGA-Ist for State-respondent; Sri Mohd. Irshad, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

2. This Criminal Appeal U/S 372 Cr.P.C., has been preferred praying for setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.06.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court Room No. 42, Shajahanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2021 (State Vs. Ruksad Khand and others) arising out of case crime no. 416 of 2020, under sections 498-A, 304B IPC and alternative charge under section 302/34 IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

3. The prosecution case is that the appellant-informant married his sister to the son of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, namely, Ruksad Khan on 22.03.2019 after giving sufficient dowry, but they were further demanding Rs. 4 lakhs in cash and a generator. In the night of 05.05.2020, the accused murdered the sister of the appellant-informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of aforesaid dowry. On getting information of the incident from pradhan of the village the night at 02:00 a.m., he reached at the place of incident and lodged the F.I.R at 05:13 a.m. against the co-accused, Ruksad and respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are the father and mother of co-accused, Ruksad, who has been convicted and sentenced under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act while the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of all charges.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.

5. 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.

6. 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."

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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."

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. After considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for appellant and perusal of the record, we find that trial court has found that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were residing separately from the couple and, therefore, they have been exonerated. He has further submitted that they were not residing separately, but in the same house and trial court has wrongly held that they were residing separately, in part of the house which was the cattle shed and not the place of living of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

14. The trial court has found that the deceased was residing with the co-accused, Ruksad, and hence it has directed conviction of the aforesaid co-accused and acquitted respondent nos. 2 and 3.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court's judgement is a well merited one, this Court need not re- appreciate the evidences.

16. The criminal appeal appeal is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Abhishek