High Court

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C./419(3) B.N.S.S. filed by the State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Lucknow in S.T. No. 818/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 90/2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 316, 511 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment indicates that the informant has been examined as PW1 and her father has been examined as PW2. No other witness of fact has been examined by the prosecution and besides the aforesaid two witnesses, the Sub Inspector (Investigating Officer) and a head constable has been examined. The informant and her father both have stated that the informant got married to the opposite party no. 1 on 23.02.2012. After her marriage, she went to Pratapgarh and it transpired that the opposite parties were not satisfied with the dowry given in her marriage. She stayed in her sasural merely for a single day and on the following day she went to Lakhimpur Kheri with her husband. Her husband used to ask her to bring Rs. 20 lakh from her father for getting a house at Lucknow. Thereafter the informant's parents gave Rs. 8 lakh but still the accused persons were not happy. Meanwhile, the informant got pregnant. In the month of October, 2012, the accused persons forcibly administered a medicine to cause her miscarriage but the informant saw the tablet and thereafter took the medicine out of her body by vomiting. The informant has alleged that on 26.12.2012, on the exhortation of the opposite party no. 2 (father-in-law), the opposite party no. 1 beaten her up with kicks and fists and tried to cause her miscarriage by kicking on her abdomen but the informant saved her child by laying on her abdomen. She gave this information to her father and thereafter her father brought her to Lucknow on 27.12.2012. The Informant has alleged that her husband used to talk to some girl for 5 to 6 hours and communicate in messages also. Her family members had gone to Lakhimpur to talk to the opposite parties on 08.04.2013 but the opposite parties misbehaved with them. The informant delivered a son by surgical operation on 11.04.2013 but none of the accused persons came to see him. On 03.05.2013, the opposite party no. 1 visited the house of the informant's father, went inside the room of the informant and said that she had delivered a son against his wishes and he had no relation with her.

4. A similar statement was given by PW2 also. The opposite party no. 1 was examined as DW1 and defence produced three other witnesses also. The opposite party no. 1 had produced documentary evidence in the shape of receipts for household goods purchased by him and he stated that he had purchased those goods from his own money. Some photographs have been filed by the opposite party no. 1 showing happy moments spent by him with the informant. The opposite party no. 1 has proved that he had made his wife (the complainant) a nominee in his PPF account and LIC. He has also proved that the the informant was suffering from various ailments and he got her treated. He has proved that his house was got constructed after taking loan from LIC and he has purchased a house and land in a joint name of himself and his wife (the informant) for which the entire payment has been made by the opposite party no. 1. The opposite party no. 1 had filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. DW2 is the radiologist who had carried out electrosonography of the informant which shows that the informant or her fetus had not suffered from any injury. DW3 Shobhit Verma has proved the photographs filed by the opposite party no. 1 showing the complainant and the opposite party no. 1 spending some good times together. DW4 Sharad Kumar Verma is an official of LIC Housing Finance and he has stated that Rs. 24 lakh were lent to the opposite party no. 1, the opposite party no. 2 and the complainant wherein the opposite party no. 1 is the chief applicant. The housing loan is being repaid regularly.

6. The opposite party no. 1 has produced a diary (exhibit B-15) wherein the complainant has noted appreciation for the opposite party no. 1 stating that he is an excellent person and he loves him. The diary does not contain any mention for demand of dowry and harassment for this reason.

7. After considering the aforesaid evidence, the trial court concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations.

8. The impugned judgment dated 20.01.2025 has been passed after a proper appreciation of the entire evidence lead by the prosecution as well as by the defence and it cannot be said that the judgment of the trial court suffers from any perversity.

9. While deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., this Court cannot interfere where two views are possible on the basis of appreciation of evidence and interference under this provision is permissible only when the judgment of the trial court is patently perverse.

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any good ground to grant leave to the State to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2025.

11. The leave application is accordingly rejected. (I.A. No. 1/2025-Condonation of Delay)

1. As the Court has not granted leave to the State to file appeal against the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2025, there is no occasion for issuing notice to the opposite parties on its application for condonation of delay.

2. The application is accordingly consigned to records. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Pradeep/-

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C./419(3) B.N.S.S. filed by the State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Lucknow in S.T. No. 818/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 90/2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 316, 511 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment indicates that the informant has been examined as PW1 and her father has been examined as PW2. No other witness of fact has been examined by the prosecution and besides the aforesaid two witnesses, the Sub Inspector (Investigating Officer) and a head constable has been examined. The informant and her father both have stated that the informant got married to the opposite party no. 1 on 23.02.2012. After her marriage, she went to Pratapgarh and it transpired that the opposite parties were not satisfied with the dowry given in her marriage. She stayed in her sasural merely for a single day and on the following day she went to Lakhimpur Kheri with her husband. Her husband used to ask her to bring Rs. 20 lakh from her father for getting a house at Lucknow. Thereafter the informant's parents gave Rs. 8 lakh but still the accused persons were not happy. Meanwhile, the informant got pregnant. In the month of October, 2012, the accused persons forcibly administered a medicine to cause her miscarriage but the informant saw the tablet and thereafter took the medicine out of her body by vomiting. The informant has alleged that on 26.12.2012, on the exhortation of the opposite party no. 2 (father-in-law), the opposite party no. 1 beaten her up with kicks and fists and tried to cause her miscarriage by kicking on her abdomen but the informant saved her child by laying on her abdomen. She gave this information to her father and thereafter her father brought her to Lucknow on 27.12.2012. The Informant has alleged that her husband used to talk to some girl for 5 to 6 hours and communicate in messages also. Her family members had gone to Lakhimpur to talk to the opposite parties on 08.04.2013 but the opposite parties misbehaved with them. The informant delivered a son by surgical operation on 11.04.2013 but none of the accused persons came to see him. On 03.05.2013, the opposite party no. 1 visited the house of the informant's father, went inside the room of the informant and said that she had delivered a son against his wishes and he had no relation with her.

4. A similar statement was given by PW2 also. The opposite party no. 1 was examined as DW1 and defence produced three other witnesses also. The opposite party no. 1 had produced documentary evidence in the shape of receipts for household goods purchased by him and he stated that he had purchased those goods from his own money. Some photographs have been filed by the opposite party no. 1 showing happy moments spent by him with the informant. The opposite party no. 1 has proved that he had made his wife (the complainant) a nominee in his PPF account and LIC. He has also proved that the the informant was suffering from various ailments and he got her treated. He has proved that his house was got constructed after taking loan from LIC and he has purchased a house and land in a joint name of himself and his wife (the informant) for which the entire payment has been made by the opposite party no. 1. The opposite party no. 1 had filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. DW2 is the radiologist who had carried out electrosonography of the informant which shows that the informant or her fetus had not suffered from any injury. DW3 Shobhit Verma has proved the photographs filed by the opposite party no. 1 showing the complainant and the opposite party no. 1 spending some good times together. DW4 Sharad Kumar Verma is an official of LIC Housing Finance and he has stated that Rs. 24 lakh were lent to the opposite party no. 1, the opposite party no. 2 and the complainant wherein the opposite party no. 1 is the chief applicant. The housing loan is being repaid regularly.

6. The opposite party no. 1 has produced a diary (exhibit B-15) wherein the complainant has noted appreciation for the opposite party no. 1 stating that he is an excellent person and he loves him. The diary does not contain any mention for demand of dowry and harassment for this reason.

7. After considering the aforesaid evidence, the trial court concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations.

8. The impugned judgment dated 20.01.2025 has been passed after a proper appreciation of the entire evidence lead by the prosecution as well as by the defence and it cannot be said that the judgment of the trial court suffers from any perversity.

9. While deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., this Court cannot interfere where two views are possible on the basis of appreciation of evidence and interference under this provision is permissible only when the judgment of the trial court is patently perverse.

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any good ground to grant leave to the State to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2025.

11. The leave application is accordingly rejected. (I.A. No. 1/2025-Condonation of Delay)

1. As the Court has not granted leave to the State to file appeal against the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2025, there is no occasion for issuing notice to the opposite parties on its application for condonation of delay.

2. The application is accordingly consigned to records. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Pradeep/-