State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Rajendra And Another v. Counsel for

4. We have heard Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/appellant and perused the record available before us.

5. By means of the present application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C./419(3) BNSS, the State has sought leave to appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 24.1.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sitapur, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused/respondents, namely, Rajendra & Vidyawati, in the Sessions Trial No.635 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Hargaon, District - Sitapur. 2 A378D No. 124 of 2025

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that as per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged on the written complaint of the informant with the allegation that his daughter's marriage was solemnized with the son of the accused/respondents on 8.5.2017 and as per his capacity, he had given gifts etc., amounting Rs.1,00,000/- but the accused/respondents and their son were not satisfied with the said gifts. He further submits that when the informant went to see first time her daughter, accused/respondents and their son told him that until motor cycle (Hero Splendor) is not given to them, vidai ceremony of his daughter will not be done. However, anyhow, she was allowed to visit her parents' house thrice and every time, she stated her parents that her in-laws are giving threat that, in case, their demand is not fulfilled, they will eliminate her and will solemnize their son's marriage with some other girl. But her family members were consoling her that everything would be normalized. However, on 16.8.2017 at about 10:00 A.M., informant received a phone call about the death of his daughter, then he immediately rushed to the house of the accused/respondents and saw that his daughter was killed since the demand of dowry of motor cycle (Hero Splendor) was not given. Thereafter, the inquest as well as post mortem of the body was conducted and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by preparing the site plan etc., and charge sheet was submitted against the accused/respondents and their son, Anuj. The trial of Anuj was separated and the case of the accused/respondents has been committed to the Court of Sessions after providing copies of the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. At the stage of framing of charges, the accused/respondents denied the allegations as well as charges and requested for trial.

7. The prosecution has placed 8 witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 - Srikrishna, P.W.2 - Savitri Devi, P.W.3 - Vijay Vikram Singh, P.W.4 - Pushpa, P.W.5 - Akansha Joshi, P.W.6 - Dr. Sunil Kumar (Medical Officer), P.W.7 - S.I., Balram Yadav, P.W.8 - Ankit Kumar (Additional Superintendent of Police). Prosecution also relied on 13 documentary evidences duly proved by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. 3 A378D No. 124 of 2025

8. After completion of the prosecution evidences, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused persons denied the prosecution story and stated that site plan was fabricated one and charge sheet was also wrongly filed. After hearing the parties, the impugned judgment and order was passed, by which accused/respondents were acquitted.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that P.W.1 & P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased and P.W.4 is sister- in-law of the deceased and they categorically supported prosecution version in examination-in-chief, but learned court below failed to appreciate their depositions and wrongly acquitted the accused/respondents by considering the depositions of aforesaid witnesses given in their cross examination. It is thus, submitted that the application for leave to appeal is liable to be allowed.

10. The relevant part of the cross-examinations of P.W.1 & P.W.2 are reproduced as under :- P.W.1 - Sri Krishna "मेरी लडकी का मेरे यहां आना जाना था तथा िकसी प्रकार तकलीफ नहीं थी। मेरी लड़की जब दामाद से कहती थी तब दामाद मेरे घर आ जाता था। राजेन्द्र तथा िवद्यावती से मुझे तथा मेरी लड़की को कोई िशकायत नहीं थी और न ही मुझसे तथा मेरे घर वालों से िकसी भी प्रकार की दान दहेज की बात कहते थे और न ही मालती देवी को दहेज के िलए प्रतािड़त करते थे तथा मालती की सुख सुिवधा अनुसार उसका पालन पोषण करते थे। मेरी िबिटया के पेट में असहनीय पीड़ा हुआ करती थी। िजसकी जानकारी मुझको थी। हमारी िबिटया इसी ददर् की वजह से आत्महत्या कर िलया होगा। मैं घटना वाले िदन िबिटया की ससुराल गया था। वहां पर सब लोग मौजूद थे। उसके बाद मेरी िबिटया का संस्कार वगैरह िकया गया। मैंने दरोगा जी को कोई ऐसा बयान नहीं िदया था िक मेरी िबिटया के सास, ससुर व पित ने दहेज की मांग की हो। जब मेरी िबिटया छोटी थी तब उसके पेट में असहनीय ददर् होता था। मैं उसका इलाज शादी के पहले कराता था और शादी के बाद मेरा दामाद भी उसका इलाज कराता था।" P.W.2 - Savitri Devi "इस साक्षी ने प्रितपरीक्षा में कथन िकया है िक मेरी िबिटया की मृत्यु िजस िदन हुई थी. उस िदन मेरे दामाद ने ही फोन पर सूचना दी थी िक मालती की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरी िबिटया मालती देवी के पेट में ददर् हुआ करता था। शादी के बाद यह बात मैंने दामाद को बताई थी। मेरी िबिटया के पेट में ददर् है। इलाज कराते रहना। मेरी िबिटया के पेट में ददर् होता रहता था। तब जोर-जोर िचल्लाती थी। मैं काली िमचर् और देशी घी की घोल बनाकर 4 A378D No. 124 of 2025 िपलाती थी तब ददर् शान्त हो जाता था। मेरी िबिटया को मेरा दामाद अनुज व राजेन्द्र तथा िवद्यावती िकसी प्रकार से प्रतािड़त नहीं करते थे और न ही मोटर साइिकल की मांग करते थे।"

11. Considering the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate and going through the record as well as deposition of witnesses, it is evident that P.W.1 has stated that deceased was killed by the accused/respondents since he failed to fulfill the demand of motor cycle (Hero Splendor), however, in the cross-examination, he categorically stated that marriage of his daughter was solemnized without any dowry. He also admitted that his daughter was suffering from abdominal disease and at the time of funeral, family members of both the sides were present. In the same manner, P.W.2 (mother of the deceased) also admitted that her daughter was suffering from abdominal disease, and whenever she suffered pain, she used to cry, for which, paste of black pepper & ghee was generally given to her for relief. P.W.2 also stated that her daughter was never victimized by the accused/respondents or her husband and they never raised any demand of motor cycle. P.W.8 - doctor, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased was also examined, who had categorically opined that the reason of death is 'Asphyxia' due to ante-mortem hanging. Therefore, the prosecution case informant's daughter deceased was being victimized for demand of dowry, as a result, she was killed, is doubtful and learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused/respondents by disbelieving the prosecution story.

12. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to re- appreciate, review and reconsider the evidences and this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal is not supposed to substitute its findings, in case, the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of 5 A378D No. 124 of 2025 Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166.

13. Thus, having considered the matter in its totality and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra), we find that the learned trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondents herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear to be improbable or perverse.

14. On the basis of forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the application for leave to appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.

15. Since the application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive and the same stands dismissed. September 1, 2025 GauraV/- (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

4. We have heard Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/appellant and perused the record available before us.

5. By means of the present application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C./419(3) BNSS, the State has sought leave to appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 24.1.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sitapur, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused/respondents, namely, Rajendra & Vidyawati, in the Sessions Trial No.635 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Hargaon, District - Sitapur. 2 A378D No. 124 of 2025

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that as per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged on the written complaint of the informant with the allegation that his daughter's marriage was solemnized with the son of the accused/respondents on 8.5.2017 and as per his capacity, he had given gifts etc., amounting Rs.1,00,000/- but the accused/respondents and their son were not satisfied with the said gifts. He further submits that when the informant went to see first time her daughter, accused/respondents and their son told him that until motor cycle (Hero Splendor) is not given to them, vidai ceremony of his daughter will not be done. However, anyhow, she was allowed to visit her parents' house thrice and every time, she stated her parents that her in-laws are giving threat that, in case, their demand is not fulfilled, they will eliminate her and will solemnize their son's marriage with some other girl. But her family members were consoling her that everything would be normalized. However, on 16.8.2017 at about 10:00 A.M., informant received a phone call about the death of his daughter, then he immediately rushed to the house of the accused/respondents and saw that his daughter was killed since the demand of dowry of motor cycle (Hero Splendor) was not given. Thereafter, the inquest as well as post mortem of the body was conducted and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by preparing the site plan etc., and charge sheet was submitted against the accused/respondents and their son, Anuj. The trial of Anuj was separated and the case of the accused/respondents has been committed to the Court of Sessions after providing copies of the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. At the stage of framing of charges, the accused/respondents denied the allegations as well as charges and requested for trial.

7. The prosecution has placed 8 witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 - Srikrishna, P.W.2 - Savitri Devi, P.W.3 - Vijay Vikram Singh, P.W.4 - Pushpa, P.W.5 - Akansha Joshi, P.W.6 - Dr. Sunil Kumar (Medical Officer), P.W.7 - S.I., Balram Yadav, P.W.8 - Ankit Kumar (Additional Superintendent of Police). Prosecution also relied on 13 documentary evidences duly proved by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. 3 A378D No. 124 of 2025

8. After completion of the prosecution evidences, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused persons denied the prosecution story and stated that site plan was fabricated one and charge sheet was also wrongly filed. After hearing the parties, the impugned judgment and order was passed, by which accused/respondents were acquitted.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that P.W.1 & P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased and P.W.4 is sister- in-law of the deceased and they categorically supported prosecution version in examination-in-chief, but learned court below failed to appreciate their depositions and wrongly acquitted the accused/respondents by considering the depositions of aforesaid witnesses given in their cross examination. It is thus, submitted that the application for leave to appeal is liable to be allowed.

10. The relevant part of the cross-examinations of P.W.1 & P.W.2 are reproduced as under :- P.W.1 - Sri Krishna "मेरी लडकी का मेरे यहां आना जाना था तथा िकसी प्रकार तकलीफ नहीं थी। मेरी लड़की जब दामाद से कहती थी तब दामाद मेरे घर आ जाता था। राजेन्द्र तथा िवद्यावती से मुझे तथा मेरी लड़की को कोई िशकायत नहीं थी और न ही मुझसे तथा मेरे घर वालों से िकसी भी प्रकार की दान दहेज की बात कहते थे और न ही मालती देवी को दहेज के िलए प्रतािड़त करते थे तथा मालती की सुख सुिवधा अनुसार उसका पालन पोषण करते थे। मेरी िबिटया के पेट में असहनीय पीड़ा हुआ करती थी। िजसकी जानकारी मुझको थी। हमारी िबिटया इसी ददर् की वजह से आत्महत्या कर िलया होगा। मैं घटना वाले िदन िबिटया की ससुराल गया था। वहां पर सब लोग मौजूद थे। उसके बाद मेरी िबिटया का संस्कार वगैरह िकया गया। मैंने दरोगा जी को कोई ऐसा बयान नहीं िदया था िक मेरी िबिटया के सास, ससुर व पित ने दहेज की मांग की हो। जब मेरी िबिटया छोटी थी तब उसके पेट में असहनीय ददर् होता था। मैं उसका इलाज शादी के पहले कराता था और शादी के बाद मेरा दामाद भी उसका इलाज कराता था।" P.W.2 - Savitri Devi "इस साक्षी ने प्रितपरीक्षा में कथन िकया है िक मेरी िबिटया की मृत्यु िजस िदन हुई थी. उस िदन मेरे दामाद ने ही फोन पर सूचना दी थी िक मालती की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरी िबिटया मालती देवी के पेट में ददर् हुआ करता था। शादी के बाद यह बात मैंने दामाद को बताई थी। मेरी िबिटया के पेट में ददर् है। इलाज कराते रहना। मेरी िबिटया के पेट में ददर् होता रहता था। तब जोर-जोर िचल्लाती थी। मैं काली िमचर् और देशी घी की घोल बनाकर 4 A378D No. 124 of 2025 िपलाती थी तब ददर् शान्त हो जाता था। मेरी िबिटया को मेरा दामाद अनुज व राजेन्द्र तथा िवद्यावती िकसी प्रकार से प्रतािड़त नहीं करते थे और न ही मोटर साइिकल की मांग करते थे।"

11. Considering the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate and going through the record as well as deposition of witnesses, it is evident that P.W.1 has stated that deceased was killed by the accused/respondents since he failed to fulfill the demand of motor cycle (Hero Splendor), however, in the cross-examination, he categorically stated that marriage of his daughter was solemnized without any dowry. He also admitted that his daughter was suffering from abdominal disease and at the time of funeral, family members of both the sides were present. In the same manner, P.W.2 (mother of the deceased) also admitted that her daughter was suffering from abdominal disease, and whenever she suffered pain, she used to cry, for which, paste of black pepper & ghee was generally given to her for relief. P.W.2 also stated that her daughter was never victimized by the accused/respondents or her husband and they never raised any demand of motor cycle. P.W.8 - doctor, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased was also examined, who had categorically opined that the reason of death is 'Asphyxia' due to ante-mortem hanging. Therefore, the prosecution case informant's daughter deceased was being victimized for demand of dowry, as a result, she was killed, is doubtful and learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused/respondents by disbelieving the prosecution story.

12. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to re- appreciate, review and reconsider the evidences and this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal is not supposed to substitute its findings, in case, the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of 5 A378D No. 124 of 2025 Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166.

13. Thus, having considered the matter in its totality and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra), we find that the learned trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondents herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear to be improbable or perverse.

14. On the basis of forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the application for leave to appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.

15. Since the application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive and the same stands dismissed. September 1, 2025 GauraV/- (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)