High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 1299 of 2022 Appellant :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Farooque Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Re: Crl. Misc. Amendment Application No. of 2022 Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to delete the name of accused respondent no.2 Rinku @ Nirmal son of Rajendra Singh from the array of the parties, memo of appeal and prayer part during the course of the day. The amendment application is allowed. Accordingly name of Rinku @ Nirmal is hereby omitted. Re: Criminal Appeal 1. Heard Mohd Farooque Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant/ informant of the case, learned AGA for the State. Both the counsel are jointly assailing the jugement and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Aligarh, acquitting the accused respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are parent-in-laws of the deceased. 2. Instant government appeal is being preferred against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 22.07.2022 whereby the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Aligarh by judgement while deciding the Sessions Trial No. 279 of 2017 arising out of case crime no. 806 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 323 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act has convicted Rinku @ Nirmal (husband) and have exonerated Rajendra Singh (father-in-law) and Nemwati (mohter-in-law) from the charges under Sections 498A, 323 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act though convicted the husband Rinku @ Nirmal for the aforementioned charges. 3. Before coming to the merits of the case, it is imperative to give bare-
Facts
skeleton facts of the case which have given rise to the present government appeal as under:- PROSECUTION STORY : 4. Prosecution story as culled out from the F.I.R. in nutshell is that,the daughter of the informant, namely Renu got married with Rinku @ Nirmal s/o Rajendra Singh about four years back. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that soon after the marriage, she was subject matter of constant torture, harasment and physical assault on account of additional dowry by way of demand of Scorpio Car for which they are demanding Rs. 2 lacs. On 24.10.2016 around 07.00 in the morning the informant got a call from her daughter, who told the informant all the cruelty faced by her, thereafter he received a message from some unknown person that her daughter might be done to death by them. Eventually an information received to the informant that her daughter has been wiped off by her in-laws and the husband. Thereafter the informant rushed to the place where he found his daughter dead. Co-villagers has told that her in-laws including the husband left the deceased in Medical Hospital and fled away from the spot. Thereafter the informant has lodged the FIR against the husband Rinku @
Legal Reasoning
20. This Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225, spoke about the approach of the appellate court while considering an appeal against an order acquitting the accused and stated as follows: "7. ..... While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate 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 appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate 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." The object and the purpose of the aforesaid approach is to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. In another words, there should not be an acquittal of the guilty or a conviction of an innocent person. 21. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415) : "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 22. Similarly in Bannareddy and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 5 SCC 790, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to discuss the scope of the High Court to interfere in an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court, and in paragraph-10 it has been held that : "10. Before we proceed further to peruse the finding of the High Court, it is relevant to discuss the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court should give due regard to the findings and the conclusions reached by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings itself. This principle has further been elucidated in the case of Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186, para 13, wherein this Court observed that: "13......The High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt." 23. In the same chain the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jayamma and another vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 6 SCC 213, has considered the law on the issue involved and observed thus : "23. The other important reason to depart from the High Court's view re. conviction of the appellants is that the power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court under Section 378, CrPC 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 re-appreciate the evidence, including in an appeal against acquittal and arrive at a different firm finding of fact." 24. We have perused the record of the case including the judgement impugned. The most fundamental constituent for attracting the provisions of Section 304-B IPC is that the death of the woman must be a dowry death under the unnatural circumstances within 7 years of her marriage. The Court must keep in mind the essential pre-requisites and ingredients for convicting an accused u/s 304-B I.P.C., which reads thus: (i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance; (ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage; (iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her husband or relative of husband, soon before her death; and (iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand for dowry. 25. After perusing the testimonies of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, one thing is undoubtedly established beyond any iota of doubt that there was demand of additional dowry, for which the deceased was allegedly subject of harassment or humiliation by her husband or by her in-laws. Secondly, it is the husband, who has taken her to hospital. It has been argued by them that the deceased was done to death by husband and in-laws for want of additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs for the purpose of purchase of Scorpio Car. The marriage was solemnized with Rinku @ Nirmal on 29.11.2012 and such incident took place on 24.10.2016 say about four years after the marriage. From the entirety of the material, it is clear that omnibus and general role has been levelled against all the persons including the husband. There is no specific role has been attributed to father-in-law nor any telephone call given by the deceased prior to the incident is relates to husband only. The object of the alleged harassment was as mentioned in the FIR and thereafter all the prosecution witnesses toe the same lines i.e. demand of Rs. Two lacs to purchase Scorpio car but fact remains that the husband was already having one Scorpio car, in his name purchased by him after the marriage, and thus the alleged motive and mensrea for harassment gets considerably diluted. If all things would be put in a linear way, the natural outcome would be that the accused- respondents were falsely implicated in the present case and the learned Trial Judge has rightly acquitted them from the charges of Sections 304-B, 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by giving benefit of doubt. Taking into account the totality of circumstances, we do not feel that there is any legal infirmity in the order impugned and this appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly appeal is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 17.10.2022 Abhishek Sri. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.31 16:08:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Nirmal, Rajesh Singh and Smt. Nemwari under the aforesaid sections of the IPC. 5. The prosecution has produced the following witnesses of fact to support the prosecution case : (i) Rajendra Singh, father of the deceased and informant of the case as PW-1. (ii) Gajendra Kumar, as P.W.-2. (iii) Premwati as P.W.-3. (iv) Poonam as P.W.-5. Few other formal witnesses have also been produced to establish the prosecution case. 6. In addition to this, the prosecution has produced eight documents which were exhibited during the trial as under : (i) Tehrir as Ext. Ka-1, (ii) AMI Report as Ext. Ka-2, (iii) G.D. as Ext. Ka- 3, (iv) Chik F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-4, (v) Panchayatnama as Ext. Ka-5, (vi) Form No. 13 as Ext. Ka-6, (vii) Applications for Post Mortem as Ext. Ka-7 and Ka-8 and (viii) Photonash as Ex.Ka-9 (ix) Site Plan as Ext.Ka-10 and (x) Charge sheet as Ext.Ka11. 7. Defence has failed to produce any witnesses in support of their defense. 8. Learned Trial Judge after recording the statements of all witnesses and thrashing all the relevant material on record, eventually landed to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish own case or involvement of accused-respondents beyond any iota of doubt and consequently giving the benefit of doubt exonerated the accused persons from the charges u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P. Act. The court of Sessions after having the case diary and other relevant material have framed the charges under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act and alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC. When asked, the accused peson denied from the charges and have insisted to have their trial. TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES 9. The Court has got occasion to peruse and analyze the testimonies of these witnesses of facts. It is necessary to give a bird's eye view to the relevant testimonies recorded before the court. (i) P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh, has reiterated the prosecution story in his chief but on 24.10.2016, he talked to her daughter in a proper way. By him she never made any complaint while talking to him. After receiving the information the informant rushed the site where there was lock at his counter part's residence and was informed that they ave taken there daughter to the Hospital. After her unfortunate demise, they have taken her dead body to informant's place where they performed her last rites bu none of the accused persons have participated in her last rites. (ii) Similarly, P.W.-2 Gajendra, uncle of the deceased, in his testimony states that the husband and his family members were not satisfied by the dowry given by the informant. They were demanding Rs. 2 lacs and Scorpio Car from the deceased for which the deceased was subject matter of maltreatment and cruelty and as a result the deceased was died as a result of hanging. It was her husband who took her to hospital and rushed away from the hospital. (iii) On the similar lines, P.W.-3 Premwati, mother of the deceased has given her testimony almost on the similar pattern as stated by PW-1 in his testimony. (iv) PW-4 Dr. A.K.Rastogi, who conducted her autopsy states that on the next date of incident, around 12.24 p.m. he was prepared post mortem report mentioning therein that deceased was having average built, but her eyes were congested, nails were bluish, a ligature mark around her neck obliquely placed, lungs & liver were congested and she died on account of ASPHYXIA as a result of Hanging. Except ligature mark no other mark of injury or struggle was observed by him. 10. The defence has failed to produced any witness on their behalf despite of the opportunity given. 11. However, Mr. Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. has tried to assail the impugned judgement by making a mention that learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution and decided the case on conjectures and surmises. Learned Trial Judge has grossly erred in disbelieving the testimony of prosecution witnesses and has given an undue importance to the version of defence. Learned Trial Judge has also not weighed and assess the prosecution witnesses in proper and perspective manner and erroneously has acquitted the accused- respondents. 12. To bring any case within the four corner of Section 304B IPC, the prosecution has to establish beyond any iota of doubt following features: a) The death of deceased was under the unnatural circumstances. b) The demise must take place within seven years of her marriage. c) Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruel treatment by her husband and in-laws for want of additional dowry. d) That cruel treatment to her shall be in connection with additional dowry. 13. No doubt that this unfortunate demise of the deceased took place within seven years of her marriage, but before applying the presumption against the husband & her in-laws as envisaged under Section 113B Evidence Act the prosecution has to establish beyond any iota of doubt, that the unfortunate incident have direct link and nexus with the harassment & cruel treatment to the lady on account of additional dowry. It was argued by the prosecution that there was constant demand of Rs. Two lacs to purchase a new Scorpio Car, but the fact remains that the husband is already having one Scarpio Car after his marriage, then the alleged motive and the reason for harassment becomes blurred and hazy. 14. There is positive stand of the defense that the lady was short tempered and of cantankerous, quarrelsome behavior, who constantly asking her husband to get separated from his parent; and on this score she has taken this extreme but fooling step. 15. Not only this, there is delay in lodging of the FIR and the same was get lodged on next date of incident after the post mortem report, in the evening after having the active consultation, around 5-6 p.m. 16. Besides this, there is no report or complaint of harassment during these four years, with regard to alleged harassment or cruel treatment by the husband. Learned Trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is nothing on record so as to establish the complicity of the father-in-law and mother-in-law in this alleged transaction. Nor the prosecution has able to establish that on account of demand of alleged additional dowry "soon before her death she has taken this extreme step". 17. After marshaling the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Husband Rinku @ Nirmal son of Rajendra Singh is convicted under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act but we find no infirmity in concluding that accused respondents have got no role to play in this offence and consequently exonerated from the above charges. LEGAL DISCUSSION : 18. The Court has got occasion to lay its hands on the latest judgements relating to scope and ambit of Sections 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which speak about appeal against acquittal. 19. In the case of Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471, while thrashing the earlier judgements, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "24. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, Krishna Iyer, J., observed as follows: "6. ..... In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents."