State v. Ankur Jain and another), under section
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 360 of 2025 Indar Rastogi State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) Jagdish Prasad Mishra : : Amit Daga, G.A. Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-Ist for the State; Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record. 2. The appeal has been preferred against the acquittal of the opposite party no.2 and to convict the opposite party no.2 in S.T. No. 494 of 2018 (State Vs. Ankur Jain and another), under section 498-A, 304-B, 201 of IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffarnagar, arising out of case crime no. 203/2018. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are, that the complainant, Inder Rastogi, stated in his complaint that his sister, Sarika, was married to Anku Jain s/o Shri Tilak Jain, on 14th November, 2014. Complainant's mother and father had spent a sum of Rs.10-12,00,00 lakhs and arranged for the dowry much more than their financial capacity. But complainant's, sister's, in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given. Because of this reason they used to harass his sister. Her in-laws made a demand of Rs.10,00,000/-(Ten Lakh) on 11.02.2018. Complainant and his family members were unable to fulfil this demand of Rs.10 lakh. The incident is of 14.02.2018 in the afternoon at about 1.30 p.m., when Sarika was suffocated to death by her mother-in-law, Rekha Jain, husband Ankur Jain, and some unknown persons. On hearing hue and cry, the neighbours saw the incident and informed the police on hundred number immediately. Police reached the place of occurrence immediately and saw his sister Sarika lying dead on the bed. Sarika has a son aged three years, namely Satyam. It is to inform you that complainant's sister's husband, Ankur Jain, had given her beatings on previous occasions also. Police action was also taken but accused persons did not mend their ways. It is humbly requested that, considering the seriousness of the incident, a report may kindly be registered against the accused persons. 2 NC413 No. 360 of 2025 4. It is on this complaint that an FIR bearing number 0203/2018 was registered against accused persons, Ankur Jain and Rekha Jain under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on 14.02.2018. 5. Thereafter charge sheet bearing number 01/2018 with case crime number 203/2018 was filed against accused Ankur Jain and Rekha Jain on 11.03.2018 under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court of CJM at, Muzaffarnagar took cognizance of the offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 05.04.2018, after compliance of section 209, Crpc 1973. 6 Charges were framed in the matter against accused persons by the Ld. Sessions Court on 13.08.2018 under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Alternate charge under section 302 IPC was also framed against the accused persons. 7. To prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses i.e PW-1 Inder Rastogi, PW-2 Seema Gupta, PW-3 Shiv Avtar Singh Tehsildar, PW-4 Deepak Rastogi, PW-5 Dr.Kunal, PW-6 CO Harish Singh Bhadoria, PW-7, lady Constable 1379 Kanchan, PW-8, Dr.Ajay Kumar. 8. The accused persons produced two defence witnesses namely DW-1 Anuj Bansal S/O Suresh Chand Bansal and DW-2 Vijay Kumar alias Tony S/O Ishwar Dayal. 9. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed error in acquitting the respondent no.2 of all charges when the trial court has found that it can be a case of strangulation. He has further argued that the respondent no.2 being mother-in-law of the deceased was also required to be convicted and sentenced like the co-accused, Ankur Jain. 10. The trial court has not considered the evidence of witnesses, who fully supported the prosecution version. Therefore, acquittal order passed by the trial court is liable to be quashed. 11. 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