High Court
Case Details
Judgement reserved on 08.03.2022 Judgement delivered on 15.03.2022 1 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 60 of 2022 (E-Court) Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Kamal Singh and 2 others Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. (Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) 1. Heard Shri Ratan Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant-State of U.P., on the application under Section 378 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Amroha in Sessions Trial No. 249 of
Facts
2017 (State Vs. Kamal Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 228 of 2015, Police Station Rajabpur, District Amroha whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the accused-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also been acquitted of charges under Section 498-A IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that, the informant got married to the accused-respondent No. 1 (Kamal Singh) on 02.12.2009. The accused-respondent No. 2 (Rajpal Singh) is the
Legal Reasoning
Therefore, we find that the findings of the learned Court below that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out, is based on proper appreciation of evidence and this finding cannot be labelled as perverse. 5 15. Regarding the allegation of committing offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, the prosecution witnesses have merely made a general allegation of demand of dowry, but none of the witnesses had made any specific statement that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had demanded dowry from any person or had harassed the informant regarding the said demand. During a period of 6 years since marriage of the informant with the respondent No. 1, no complaint of any sort has been made alleging the demand of dowry or harassment. In absence of any evidence to prove the charges of Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, the learned Court below has rightly acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the aforesaid charges. 16. The judgement dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Amroha in Sessions Trial No. 249 of 2017 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to warrant a further scrutiny by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. There is no good ground for grant of leave to appeal to the State-appellant. The application seeking leave to file an appeal is, accordingly rejected. (Order on Appeal) 17. Since the application seeking leave to file an appeal is rejected, the appeal also stands dismissed summarily at the admission stage. Order Date :-15.03.2022 Jaswant (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Vivek Kumar Birla, J.) Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.03.15 18:22:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
father of Kamal Singh and Smt. Ramesh Devi is the mother of Kamal Singh. The respondents were not satisfied with the dowry and soon after wedding, they started demanding a four wheeler vehicle. About 10 days prior to lodging of the FIR, the respondents turned the informant out of their home stating that she should bring Rs. 5 lakh 2 or a four wheeler vehicle from her parents. The informant came to her parents' home and told all the things, whereupon, her father said that if he does not improve the former will make a complaint to the police. On 20.10.2015 at about 6:00 p.m. the respondents came to the informant’s house. The informant, her father and Bhabhi (sister- in-law) were present there. As soon as they arrived, they said that how she dared to make complaint to the police and she will have to face its repercussion and they caught hold of her and with intention to kill her, they put a rope around her neck and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 started pulling it and the respondent No. 1 assaulted on her with a knife with the intention to kill her. Seeing this, her father and Bhabhi got stunned and raising alarm, they came to save her. Some villagers also came to the spot and the respondents ran away. 3. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses and after scrutinizing the entire evidence, the learned Court below came to a conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the commission of offence under Section 307 IPC but the respondents were held guilty of committing offence of causing hurt, punishable under Section 323 IPC. The respondent No. 1 (Kamal Singh-husband) was held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act but the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted from the aforesaid charges. 4. The State-appellant has filed an application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal against the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution properly whereas the prosecution has fully proved its case. Learned Trial Court has not weighed and assessed the prosecution case in its proper prospective and has erroneously acquitted the accused-respondents. 5. In Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 6 SCC 213, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the manner in which the High Court should exercise its power of scrutiny in an appeal filed against an order of acquittal, in the following words: - 3 "the power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C. should not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial court was a "possible view". The judgment of the trial court cannot be set aside merely because the High Court finds its own view more probable, save where the judgment of the trial court suffers from perversity or the conclusions drawn by it were impossible if there was a correct reading and analysis of the evidence on record. To say it differently, unless the High Court finds that there is complete misreading of the material evidence which has led to miscarriage of justice, the view taken by the trial court which can also possibly be a correct view, need not be interfered with. This self-restraint doctrine, of course, does not denude the High Court of its powers to reappreciate the evidence, including in an appeal against acquittal and arrive at a different firm finding of fact." 6. We have proceeded to examine the material available on record of the case to ascertain whether the Court below has taken a possible view while recording its finding or whether the findings appear to be perverse. 7. PW-1 informant has stated that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 put a rope around her neck and pulled it with intention to kill her and the respondent No. 1 assaulted her with a knife. She suffered injuries on her neck due to the rope and injuries of knife in her left shoulder. Her father Atar Singh and Bhabhi Reena were present there at the time of the incident and by hearing the alarm, Pramod Devi, Narendra and several other persons of the village had come there. The accused persons went back upon seeing them. At the time of the incident, she was sitting on a cot. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had put a rope around her neck, when they were at a distance of 1 feet from her. 8. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that when the respondents came to her house, she was standing at the gate and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 put a rope around the neck and started pulling it from a distance of 1 meter. This discrepancy in her statement regarding the alleged incident makes the incident doubtful. 9. PW-2 Atar Singh (father of the informant) had supported the 4 FIR allegations. However, he stated that he did not see the accused persons pulling the rope around the neck of his daughter. He has stated that his daughter was not sitting on a cot. He was near the courtyard and his daughter-in-law was on the door of a room. When he reached outside after hearing the alarm, the accused had already ran away. 10. PW-7 (Narendra Singh) who is said to be an eye witness of the incident, has stated in his cross-examination that upon seeing him, the accused persons ran away in his presence and they took away the rope and knife with them. When he reached there, the informant was lying down on a cot inside the house. From this statement, it appears that he did not see the incident. 11. There is a material contradictions in the statement of PW-7 that the accused persons took away the knife and rope with them and the statement of PW-1 that she had taken the rope to the Police Station and had given it to the Investigating Officer and the statement of PW-6 who stated that he recovered the rope from the spot which makes the statement of the witnesses doubtful. 12. PW-4 (Chandrapal Singh) who had conducted the medical examination of PW-1 has reported two injuries, one of which was a cut wound on the back near the left shoulder but there was no cut marks on the clothes worn by the injured. 13. Causing hurt and attempting to murder are two different things and the injuries do not prove the allegation of attempt to murder. The story of a rope being put around the neck and being pulled also appears to be doubtful because of the material contradictions in the statements of witnesses, as noted above. 14.