State of U.P v. Smt. Adesh and Others, arising out of case crime no

1. Heard Sri P.K. Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2022 passed by Session Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Session Trial No. 107 of 2012 (CNR No. UPGB01000004)- 2012) State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Adesh and Others, arising out of case crime no. 340 of 2011 under sections, 302 and 120-B of IPC and P.S.- Sector 39, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar.

3. The son of informant, Dinesh, aged about 22 years was pursuing the course of Hotel Management and about 7-8 months ago, Ram Pal, and his wife residents of, Sonipat, Haryana, proposed marriage of their daughter, Kavita, with his son. The elder daughter of, Rampal, is married in the village of informant and she made his son meet Kavita, but Dinesh, was not willing to marry Kavita and refuse to marry her. Subsequently, he came to know that his son, Dinesh, was having love affair with Madhuri @ Rachna, daughter of Ahivaram Singh, resident of Kannauj and wanted to marry her. On 23.04.2021, the family members of Madhuri had finalised their relationship and got the engagement ceremony done. When, Kavita, and her family members came to know of the same, they got annoyed and Kavita and his sisters, threatened his son on phone that they will not let his marriage solemnized with any other girl. On 01.05.2021 at 07:00 p.m., his son was going to tuition and was stopped by elder sister of Kavita, namely, Aadesh, in the way and she took him in a car and went away. Number of persons of the village saw them going together. At about 09:00 p.m., his son called on phone and could only state "papa' and, thereafter, someone disconnected his phone. He heard sound of two ladies and one male on the phone. Later, he found his son on the left seat of the car in unconscious position. He was given poison, his son was murdered by administering poison by Aadesh, Kavit, Rajesh and Rampal.

4. Before the trial court, the prosecution produced the following witnesses:---

1. P.W.-1,Ramanand, the informant proved Exhibit Ka 1, FIR.

2. P.W.- 2, Sukhpal, witness of the panchnama Ka-2 as well as witness of last seen.

3. PW.-3, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, proved post-mortem Exhibit Ka- 3.

4. PW.-4, Pawan Kumar, the witness of last seen.

5. P.W.-5, Subhash, the witness of extra judicial confession

6. P.W.6, Rakesh, the witness of last seen.

7. P.W.-7, Sub-Inspector, Bacchu Singh, proved Panchyatnama Exhibit Ka 2, photo nash Exhibit Ka 4, report to CMO Exhibit Ka 5, Form 33- Exhibit Ka 6, Police paper- Form No. 13 Exhibit Ka 7, Namuna Mohar- Exhibit Ka 8, information regarding the deceased from Kailash Hospital Exhibit-Ka 9

8. P.W.-8- Madhavi @ Rachana, fiancee from whom deceased marriage was fixed by his parents.

9. P.W.- 9- Inspector Arun Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer, proved Site plan- Exhibit Ka 10 and charge-sheet Exhibit Ka 11.

10. PW 10- Munind Singh, Computer Operator proved Exhibit Chik.

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

6. 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

1. Heard Sri P.K. Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2022 passed by Session Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Session Trial No. 107 of 2012 (CNR No. UPGB01000004)- 2012) State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Adesh and Others, arising out of case crime no. 340 of 2011 under sections, 302 and 120-B of IPC and P.S.- Sector 39, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar.

3. The son of informant, Dinesh, aged about 22 years was pursuing the course of Hotel Management and about 7-8 months ago, Ram Pal, and his wife residents of, Sonipat, Haryana, proposed marriage of their daughter, Kavita, with his son. The elder daughter of, Rampal, is married in the village of informant and she made his son meet Kavita, but Dinesh, was not willing to marry Kavita and refuse to marry her. Subsequently, he came to know that his son, Dinesh, was having love affair with Madhuri @ Rachna, daughter of Ahivaram Singh, resident of Kannauj and wanted to marry her. On 23.04.2021, the family members of Madhuri had finalised their relationship and got the engagement ceremony done. When, Kavita, and her family members came to know of the same, they got annoyed and Kavita and his sisters, threatened his son on phone that they will not let his marriage solemnized with any other girl. On 01.05.2021 at 07:00 p.m., his son was going to tuition and was stopped by elder sister of Kavita, namely, Aadesh, in the way and she took him in a car and went away. Number of persons of the village saw them going together. At about 09:00 p.m., his son called on phone and could only state "papa' and, thereafter, someone disconnected his phone. He heard sound of two ladies and one male on the phone. Later, he found his son on the left seat of the car in unconscious position. He was given poison, his son was murdered by administering poison by Aadesh, Kavit, Rajesh and Rampal.

4. Before the trial court, the prosecution produced the following witnesses:---

1. P.W.-1,Ramanand, the informant proved Exhibit Ka 1, FIR.

2. P.W.- 2, Sukhpal, witness of the panchnama Ka-2 as well as witness of last seen.

3. PW.-3, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, proved post-mortem Exhibit Ka- 3.

4. PW.-4, Pawan Kumar, the witness of last seen.

5. P.W.-5, Subhash, the witness of extra judicial confession

6. P.W.6, Rakesh, the witness of last seen.

7. P.W.-7, Sub-Inspector, Bacchu Singh, proved Panchyatnama Exhibit Ka 2, photo nash Exhibit Ka 4, report to CMO Exhibit Ka 5, Form 33- Exhibit Ka 6, Police paper- Form No. 13 Exhibit Ka 7, Namuna Mohar- Exhibit Ka 8, information regarding the deceased from Kailash Hospital Exhibit-Ka 9

8. P.W.-8- Madhavi @ Rachana, fiancee from whom deceased marriage was fixed by his parents.

9. P.W.- 9- Inspector Arun Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer, proved Site plan- Exhibit Ka 10 and charge-sheet Exhibit Ka 11.

10. PW 10- Munind Singh, Computer Operator proved Exhibit Chik.

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

6. 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