State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Ravi Prakash Rai Others), arising out of Case Crime No

Shri Ravi Prakash Rai, Shri Ram Rai and Smt. Dimple Rai, have been acquitted of all the charges under.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant, Pramod Kumar Rai solemnized marriage of his sister, namely, Padmini Rai with with Dhananjay Rai son of Ram Rai on 28.01.2023 according to Hindu marriage rites after giving sufficient dowry according to his status. After few days of marriage, her in-laws, namely, Ravi Prakash Rai, Shri Ram Rai and Smt. Dimple Rai, started torturing his sister and demanding dowry in the form of Rs.1,50,000/-, regarding which information was given by Padmini to him and he tried to convince them but in vain. On 04.08.2014 at about 03.00 p.m. complainant's brother-in-law Dhananjay Rai, who was doing job out of station, came to his house and informed about the death of his sister Padmini, whereon he along with Dhananjay reached matrimonial home of his sister and found that his sister has died and there was mark of rope on her neck. Complainant had belief that murder of his sister was committed by the Ravi Prakash Rai, Smt. Dimple Rai and Shri Ram Rai for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. His sister had left behind a female child of 8 months. On the basis of aforesaid information, the first information report was lodged. The investigating officer after completing all formalities and collecting sufficient material evidences submitted charge sheet against the accused respondents in the Court below.

4. The accused-respondents denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its cases has examined P.W.-1 Pramod Kumar Rai, (complainant), P.W.-2 Kiran Rai, P.W.-3 Dr. V.K. Gupta, P.W.-4 Mukesh Tiwari, P.W.-5 Chandradev Thakur, P.W.-6 Anshuman Mishra, C.O.(I.O.), P.W.-7 Head Moharrir Awadhesh Pandey, P.W.-8 Alok Kumar Tehsildar, P.W.-9 Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, C.O. & P.W.-10 Dhananjay Rai.

6. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused-respondents are entitled for acquittal.

7. Learned counsel for the State-appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed patent legal error in acquitting the respondents of all charges. Prosecution proved its case against the them beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the judgment of trial court is not in accordance with law and hence leave may be granted to the appellant to challenge the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court below.

8. 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 Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by re- appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below: "Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant 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 appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant 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. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity.

11. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under: "25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."

13. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

14. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

15. After hearing the submissions of learned AGA for the State- appellant and going through the record, we find that there are allegations against the respondents of meting out cruelty to the deceased, which resulted in her death. From record it appears that in the post mortem of deceased no other injury, except the ligature mark on her neck was found. The cause of death of the deceased was found to be asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem hanging. Strangely in the present case the husband of the deceased was not implicated as an accused. Only the respondents, who are the family members of matrimonial home of the deceased, have been implicated as accused. We found that to sustain the conviction under section 304 IPC, out of five requirements, only one that her death was caused within 7 years of her marriage was proved. She did not died on account of any burns or badly injury. No evidence of her being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband was produced in connection with demand of dowry, nor it was proved that soon before her death she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment. P.W.-2 has stated that the husband of the deceased, namely, Dhananjay Rai, was having some illicit relationship and this was the reason of the deceased being under depression, which may have been cause of her commission of suicide by way of hanging. The trial court has considered the evidence on record in correct prospective and has recorded the finding in favour of the respondents, which have not been demonstrated to be perverse before us.

16. In view of the above, the judgment of the trial court is well merited one and the findings of the trial court do not require any interference by this Court.

17. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is affirmed.

18. The above leave to appeal application preferred by the State- appellant is hereby rejected. Order on Government Appeal

1. In view of the fact that the leave to appeal application has already been rejected by order of date, the Government Appeal is also dismissed.

2. Office is directed to return the trial court record and notify this judgment too to the trial court within period of three weeks. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 VKG VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Ravi Prakash Rai, Shri Ram Rai and Smt. Dimple Rai, have been acquitted of all the charges under.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant, Pramod Kumar Rai solemnized marriage of his sister, namely, Padmini Rai with with Dhananjay Rai son of Ram Rai on 28.01.2023 according to Hindu marriage rites after giving sufficient dowry according to his status. After few days of marriage, her in-laws, namely, Ravi Prakash Rai, Shri Ram Rai and Smt. Dimple Rai, started torturing his sister and demanding dowry in the form of Rs.1,50,000/-, regarding which information was given by Padmini to him and he tried to convince them but in vain. On 04.08.2014 at about 03.00 p.m. complainant's brother-in-law Dhananjay Rai, who was doing job out of station, came to his house and informed about the death of his sister Padmini, whereon he along with Dhananjay reached matrimonial home of his sister and found that his sister has died and there was mark of rope on her neck. Complainant had belief that murder of his sister was committed by the Ravi Prakash Rai, Smt. Dimple Rai and Shri Ram Rai for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. His sister had left behind a female child of 8 months. On the basis of aforesaid information, the first information report was lodged. The investigating officer after completing all formalities and collecting sufficient material evidences submitted charge sheet against the accused respondents in the Court below.

4. The accused-respondents denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its cases has examined P.W.-1 Pramod Kumar Rai, (complainant), P.W.-2 Kiran Rai, P.W.-3 Dr. V.K. Gupta, P.W.-4 Mukesh Tiwari, P.W.-5 Chandradev Thakur, P.W.-6 Anshuman Mishra, C.O.(I.O.), P.W.-7 Head Moharrir Awadhesh Pandey, P.W.-8 Alok Kumar Tehsildar, P.W.-9 Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, C.O. & P.W.-10 Dhananjay Rai.

6. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused-respondents are entitled for acquittal.

7. Learned counsel for the State-appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed patent legal error in acquitting the respondents of all charges. Prosecution proved its case against the them beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the judgment of trial court is not in accordance with law and hence leave may be granted to the appellant to challenge the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court below.

8. 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 Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by re- appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below: "Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant 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 appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant 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. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity.

11. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under: "25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."

13. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

14. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

15. After hearing the submissions of learned AGA for the State- appellant and going through the record, we find that there are allegations against the respondents of meting out cruelty to the deceased, which resulted in her death. From record it appears that in the post mortem of deceased no other injury, except the ligature mark on her neck was found. The cause of death of the deceased was found to be asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem hanging. Strangely in the present case the husband of the deceased was not implicated as an accused. Only the respondents, who are the family members of matrimonial home of the deceased, have been implicated as accused. We found that to sustain the conviction under section 304 IPC, out of five requirements, only one that her death was caused within 7 years of her marriage was proved. She did not died on account of any burns or badly injury. No evidence of her being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband was produced in connection with demand of dowry, nor it was proved that soon before her death she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment. P.W.-2 has stated that the husband of the deceased, namely, Dhananjay Rai, was having some illicit relationship and this was the reason of the deceased being under depression, which may have been cause of her commission of suicide by way of hanging. The trial court has considered the evidence on record in correct prospective and has recorded the finding in favour of the respondents, which have not been demonstrated to be perverse before us.

16. In view of the above, the judgment of the trial court is well merited one and the findings of the trial court do not require any interference by this Court.

17. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is affirmed.

18. The above leave to appeal application preferred by the State- appellant is hereby rejected. Order on Government Appeal

1. In view of the fact that the leave to appeal application has already been rejected by order of date, the Government Appeal is also dismissed.

2. Office is directed to return the trial court record and notify this judgment too to the trial court within period of three weeks. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 VKG VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad