Manoj And Ors. vs Counsel for Applicant(s)

1030/2008 arising out of Case Crime No.1264 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act., Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges by the learned trial court.

3. The prosecution's case, in nutshell, is that the deceased, Sudhara Devi, married the respondent, Manoj, about three years prior to her death. It is alleged that the respondents, including Manoj and his family members, demanded dowry consisting of Rs.10,000 in cash, a bicycle, and a mobile phone, and on failing to meet these demand subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment. On 08.07.2008, the deceased was found dead in an unnatural manner at her husband's residence. The prosecution contended that she was murdered by the accused due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands and cruelty meted out to her.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as much as 14 witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 Ram Kishun (complainant), P.W.-2 Sona Shri, P.W.-3 Ramu, P.W.-4 Chetram, P.W.-5 Smt Nirmala, P.W.-6 Amrit Lal, P.W.-7 Ram Prakash, P.W.-8 Chotey Lal, P.W.-9 Shivpyari, P.W.-10 Mishri Lal, P.W.-11 Vidhya Ram, P.W.-12 Saroj Kumar Singh, P.W.-13 Dr.Dinesh Kumar, P.W.-14 C.O. Satyam.

5. Apart from this defence also examined two witnesses i.e. D.W.-1 Shiv Ratan and D.W.-2 Anoop Pandit. 2 A378 No. 120 of 2013

6. Shiv Ratan, D.W.-1 stated that on the date of the incident, several accused persons, including Rambali, Smt. Ratikala, and Kallu, were present at his house at Noorpur in connection with his sister's marriage which coincided with the date of Sudhara's death. He emphasized that these family members had arrived a day prior and remained at his house during the time of the unfortunate incident. DW-1 also clarified that he had no personal knowledge about the circumstances of the death and only learned of the incident afterwards.

7. Anoop Pandit, D.W.-2 a neighbour of the accused Manoj, testified that on the day of Sudhara's death, he, along with Vidya Ram, Ramlakhan, and accused Manoj had gone to the fields early in the morning and returned together in the afternoon. According to DW-2, Manoj and Sudhara were living together harmoniously and no quarrels were witnessed. On their return, Manoj entered the house alone while the others washed at the water tap nearby when an alarm was raised about Sudhara's body. DW-2 further suggested that an unknown person might have entered the house leading to the death and denied the existence of any dowry demand or cruelty by the accused. The defence witnesses thus sought to negate the prosecution's allegations and establish an alibi for the accused at the critical time.

8. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is apparent that none of the prosecution witnesses of fact supported the prosecution version and they were declared hostile at the behest of prosecution and they were cross examined by the prosecution. But no such fact was revealed in the cross examination of the witnesses that could help the prosecution in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.

9. We have also heard the submissions advanced by learned A.G.A and perused the material on record.

10. The learned Trial Court upon careful scrutiny of all the oral and documentary evidences found that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of dowry demand, ill-treatment, or cruelty at the hands of the respondents. The relatives of the deceased during their examination denied any demand for dowry or harassment. The postmortem report indicated that the cause of death was due to strangulation but found no evidence of physical assault prior to death. The Court noted discrepancies in the prosecution case and inconsistencies in witness statements. Further, the accused were found to be elsewhere on the day of incident by credible witness testimony. Consequently, the trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the death was a consequence of dowry demand or cruelty by the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them of all charges.

11. The appellant-State assailed the trial court's judgment on the grounds that the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, the deceased's death occurred within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances at the residence of respondents. Under Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the accused who failed to discharge it, the trial court ignored 3 A378 No. 120 of 2013 material evidence and acquitted the respondents erroneously, and the judgment is perverse and deserves to be set aside.

12. Learned A.G.A. for the State also argued that the trial court erred in disregarding medical evidence and testimonies indicating unnatural death linked to dowry cruelty. It was contended that the respondents abused the deceased and caused her death for not fulfilling dowry demands and thus, the acquittal must be reversed.

13. On hearing the submissions and perusal of the record, this Court observes that the prosecution witnesses, including deceased's close relatives, negated any demand for dowry or cruelty. No such complaints were made by the deceased in her lifetime. The postmortem report confirms death due to strangulation but does not support the prosecution's version of physical assault linked to dowry cruelty. Evidence placed on record shows that some accused were away from the residence at the time of death, negating their involvement. Multiple witnesses who were hostile to prosecution were discredited and the Court finds credibility in the trial court's assessment. The evidence on record demonstrates lack of substantive proof that the respondents caused the death due to dowry-related cruelty.

14. It is well established that an appellate court should not interfere with acquittal unless the judgment is found to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. The trial court has given a detailed and reasoned judgment, which does not suffer from legal infirmity.

15.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramesh and Others versus State of Haryana; (2017) 1 SCC 529, has held that before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained, which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. The relevant paragraphs 24 and 26 are extracted herein below:- "24. We have duly appreciated the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties on both sides.No doubt, the High Court was dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the trial court which had acquitted the appellants herein. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to 4 A378 No. 120 of 2013 reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However, this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court,the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal against the acquittal,is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible.

25.x x x x x

26. This legal position is reiterated in Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 and the following passage therefrom needs to be extracted: (SCC p. 732, paras 12-13) "12.The legislature in its wisdom, unlike an appeal by an accused in the case of conviction, introduced the concept of leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 Cr.P.C.This is an indication that appeal from acquittal is placed on a somewhat different footing than a normal appeal. But once ce leave is granted, then there is hardly any difference between a normal appeal and an appeal against acquittal. The concept of leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been introduced as an additional stage between the order of acquittal and consideration of the judgment by the appellate court on merits as in the case of a regular appeal. Sub-section (3) of Section 378 clearly provides that no appeal to the High Court under sub-section( 1)or (2)shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. This legislative intent of attaching a definite value to the judgment of acquittal cannot be ignored by the courts."

13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. A benefit that has accrued to an accused by the judgment of acquittal can be taken away and he can be convicted on appeal, only when the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law.Upon examination of the evidence beforei it, the appellate court should be fully convinced that the findings returned by the trial court are really erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law."

16. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab; (2005) 5 SCC 207 has held that in order to attract Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is duty bound to proof that the death of woman occurred under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of her marriage, then she was subjected to demand of dowry by her husband and by relatives of her husband and she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry.

17. In other words if prosecution succeeds in proving the above mentioned conditions against the accused beyond reasonable doubt only then presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn against the accused.

18. The relevant paragraph Nos.9 and 10 are extracted herein below:- 5 A378 No. 120 of 2013 "9. The law as it exists now provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative for or in connection with any demand of dowry such death shall be punishable under Section 304B. In order to seek a conviction against a person for the offence of dowry death, the prosecution is obliged to prove that:(a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances: (b) such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage: (c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband: (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected to soon before her death.

10. As and when the aforesaid circumstances are established, a presumption of dowry death shall be drawn against the accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. It has to be kept in mind that presumption under Section 113B is a presumption of law. We do not agree with the submissions made by Mr.Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the accused that the statement made by the deceased to her relations before her death were not admissible in evidence on account of intervening period between the date of making the statement and her death.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 116, has held 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 and 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.

20. It is also well settled that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In this matter, P.W.13 Dr. Dinesh Kumar opined that the death of the deceased was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation.

21.In view of the above discussion and on careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge. The acquittal is based on cogent reasoning and the evidence on record. 6 A378 No. 120 of 2013

22. Accordingly, the application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. November 7, 2025 Shahnaz (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1030/2008 arising out of Case Crime No.1264 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act., Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges by the learned trial court.

3. The prosecution's case, in nutshell, is that the deceased, Sudhara Devi, married the respondent, Manoj, about three years prior to her death. It is alleged that the respondents, including Manoj and his family members, demanded dowry consisting of Rs.10,000 in cash, a bicycle, and a mobile phone, and on failing to meet these demand subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment. On 08.07.2008, the deceased was found dead in an unnatural manner at her husband's residence. The prosecution contended that she was murdered by the accused due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands and cruelty meted out to her.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as much as 14 witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 Ram Kishun (complainant), P.W.-2 Sona Shri, P.W.-3 Ramu, P.W.-4 Chetram, P.W.-5 Smt Nirmala, P.W.-6 Amrit Lal, P.W.-7 Ram Prakash, P.W.-8 Chotey Lal, P.W.-9 Shivpyari, P.W.-10 Mishri Lal, P.W.-11 Vidhya Ram, P.W.-12 Saroj Kumar Singh, P.W.-13 Dr.Dinesh Kumar, P.W.-14 C.O. Satyam.

5. Apart from this defence also examined two witnesses i.e. D.W.-1 Shiv Ratan and D.W.-2 Anoop Pandit. 2 A378 No. 120 of 2013

6. Shiv Ratan, D.W.-1 stated that on the date of the incident, several accused persons, including Rambali, Smt. Ratikala, and Kallu, were present at his house at Noorpur in connection with his sister's marriage which coincided with the date of Sudhara's death. He emphasized that these family members had arrived a day prior and remained at his house during the time of the unfortunate incident. DW-1 also clarified that he had no personal knowledge about the circumstances of the death and only learned of the incident afterwards.

7. Anoop Pandit, D.W.-2 a neighbour of the accused Manoj, testified that on the day of Sudhara's death, he, along with Vidya Ram, Ramlakhan, and accused Manoj had gone to the fields early in the morning and returned together in the afternoon. According to DW-2, Manoj and Sudhara were living together harmoniously and no quarrels were witnessed. On their return, Manoj entered the house alone while the others washed at the water tap nearby when an alarm was raised about Sudhara's body. DW-2 further suggested that an unknown person might have entered the house leading to the death and denied the existence of any dowry demand or cruelty by the accused. The defence witnesses thus sought to negate the prosecution's allegations and establish an alibi for the accused at the critical time.

8. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is apparent that none of the prosecution witnesses of fact supported the prosecution version and they were declared hostile at the behest of prosecution and they were cross examined by the prosecution. But no such fact was revealed in the cross examination of the witnesses that could help the prosecution in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.

9. We have also heard the submissions advanced by learned A.G.A and perused the material on record.

10. The learned Trial Court upon careful scrutiny of all the oral and documentary evidences found that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of dowry demand, ill-treatment, or cruelty at the hands of the respondents. The relatives of the deceased during their examination denied any demand for dowry or harassment. The postmortem report indicated that the cause of death was due to strangulation but found no evidence of physical assault prior to death. The Court noted discrepancies in the prosecution case and inconsistencies in witness statements. Further, the accused were found to be elsewhere on the day of incident by credible witness testimony. Consequently, the trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the death was a consequence of dowry demand or cruelty by the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them of all charges.

11. The appellant-State assailed the trial court's judgment on the grounds that the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, the deceased's death occurred within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances at the residence of respondents. Under Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the accused who failed to discharge it, the trial court ignored 3 A378 No. 120 of 2013 material evidence and acquitted the respondents erroneously, and the judgment is perverse and deserves to be set aside.

12. Learned A.G.A. for the State also argued that the trial court erred in disregarding medical evidence and testimonies indicating unnatural death linked to dowry cruelty. It was contended that the respondents abused the deceased and caused her death for not fulfilling dowry demands and thus, the acquittal must be reversed.

13. On hearing the submissions and perusal of the record, this Court observes that the prosecution witnesses, including deceased's close relatives, negated any demand for dowry or cruelty. No such complaints were made by the deceased in her lifetime. The postmortem report confirms death due to strangulation but does not support the prosecution's version of physical assault linked to dowry cruelty. Evidence placed on record shows that some accused were away from the residence at the time of death, negating their involvement. Multiple witnesses who were hostile to prosecution were discredited and the Court finds credibility in the trial court's assessment. The evidence on record demonstrates lack of substantive proof that the respondents caused the death due to dowry-related cruelty.

14. It is well established that an appellate court should not interfere with acquittal unless the judgment is found to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. The trial court has given a detailed and reasoned judgment, which does not suffer from legal infirmity.

15.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramesh and Others versus State of Haryana; (2017) 1 SCC 529, has held that before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained, which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. The relevant paragraphs 24 and 26 are extracted herein below:- "24. We have duly appreciated the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties on both sides.No doubt, the High Court was dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the trial court which had acquitted the appellants herein. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to 4 A378 No. 120 of 2013 reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However, this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court,the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal against the acquittal,is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible.

25.x x x x x

26. This legal position is reiterated in Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 and the following passage therefrom needs to be extracted: (SCC p. 732, paras 12-13) "12.The legislature in its wisdom, unlike an appeal by an accused in the case of conviction, introduced the concept of leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 Cr.P.C.This is an indication that appeal from acquittal is placed on a somewhat different footing than a normal appeal. But once ce leave is granted, then there is hardly any difference between a normal appeal and an appeal against acquittal. The concept of leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been introduced as an additional stage between the order of acquittal and consideration of the judgment by the appellate court on merits as in the case of a regular appeal. Sub-section (3) of Section 378 clearly provides that no appeal to the High Court under sub-section( 1)or (2)shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. This legislative intent of attaching a definite value to the judgment of acquittal cannot be ignored by the courts."

13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. A benefit that has accrued to an accused by the judgment of acquittal can be taken away and he can be convicted on appeal, only when the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law.Upon examination of the evidence beforei it, the appellate court should be fully convinced that the findings returned by the trial court are really erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law."

16. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab; (2005) 5 SCC 207 has held that in order to attract Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is duty bound to proof that the death of woman occurred under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of her marriage, then she was subjected to demand of dowry by her husband and by relatives of her husband and she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry.

17. In other words if prosecution succeeds in proving the above mentioned conditions against the accused beyond reasonable doubt only then presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn against the accused.

18. The relevant paragraph Nos.9 and 10 are extracted herein below:- 5 A378 No. 120 of 2013 "9. The law as it exists now provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative for or in connection with any demand of dowry such death shall be punishable under Section 304B. In order to seek a conviction against a person for the offence of dowry death, the prosecution is obliged to prove that:(a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances: (b) such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage: (c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband: (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected to soon before her death.

10. As and when the aforesaid circumstances are established, a presumption of dowry death shall be drawn against the accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. It has to be kept in mind that presumption under Section 113B is a presumption of law. We do not agree with the submissions made by Mr.Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the accused that the statement made by the deceased to her relations before her death were not admissible in evidence on account of intervening period between the date of making the statement and her death.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 116, has held 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 and 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.

20. It is also well settled that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In this matter, P.W.13 Dr. Dinesh Kumar opined that the death of the deceased was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation.

21.In view of the above discussion and on careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge. The acquittal is based on cogent reasoning and the evidence on record. 6 A378 No. 120 of 2013

22. Accordingly, the application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. November 7, 2025 Shahnaz (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench