Ram Prasad and Another vs Counsel for Applicant(s)

Chandra were acquitted by the trial court.

3. The Leave to Appeal filed under Section 378(3) Criminal Procedure 2 A378 No. 96 of 2010 Code(In short Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated

16.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track, court no. 7, Hardoi in Session Trial No. 296A of 2007 arising out of case crime no. 154 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act, police station Baghauli, district Hardoi whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted by the trial court.

4. The F.I.R. was lodged on an application moved by the complainant Ramratan under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated that the complainant about a quarter to three years ago married his daughter namely Km. Santosh with the accused Ashok Kumar as per the hindu customs and gave dowry as per his capacity. During the marriage itself, the accused Ashok Kumar, Kailash, Chhotakki, Ram Prasad and Ramchandra demanded a motorcycle as dowry, to which, the applicant expressed his inability saying that he was poor and could not afford to give a motorcycle. After the marriage, the accused persons started taunting and threatened his daughter that if your family did not give the motorcycle, they would not allow her to live in the house. The complainant’s daughter came home on the fourth day after marriage and told everything and thereafter when she again went to the sasural the complainant also accompanied with her. The complainant made prayer to the accused Ashok Kumar and his brothers showing his inability to give motorcycle. After that whenever the daughter of the complainant used to come home, she used to talk about the motorcycle and the complainant would show his inability. For the past 6 months, Ashok, his brothers and sisters have been repeatedly calling the applicant's nephew, Surendra on his phone and threatening to kill his daughter if he does not give a 3 A378 No. 96 of 2010 motorcycle.

5. It is further stated in the application that on 8.11.06 at 7.30 pm, the Complainant got the news on phone that his daughter has committed suicide. When the applicant along-with Surendra and Gurushevak arrived at the village, they found the applicant's daughter hanging and no one from the family of her in-laws was present. The applicant reported the incident to the police station whereupon the police arrived. They had taken his thumb impression on a blank sheet of paper, assured him of a report, and stated that his report had been filed but three months passed and no action was taken in the applicant's case. On 20.11.2006, the complainant moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, but no action was taken. After this, on 29.12.06, the complainant also gave application to the Inspector General of Police, Human Rights Commission, Hon'ble Governor and Honorable Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Government but when no action was taken, the complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.(Ext. Ka-1) to register the report.

6. The court directed the police to register the report. The police registered the F.I.R.(Ext. Ka-6) on 9.4.2007 at 9.15 a.m. against the accused Ashok Kumar, Kailash, Chhotakki, Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra. The investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Ashok Kumar under Sections 498, 304-B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act. The other co-accused person namely Kailash, Chhotakki, Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., however the accused Kailash, Chhotakki, Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra did not 4 A378 No. 96 of 2010 appear and their cases were separated from the case of accused Ashok Kumar. Moreover, the co-accused persons namely Kailash and Chhotakki were declared Juvenile vide order dated 5.8.2008 passed by the learned trial court and their case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

7. To prove the case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :- P.W. 1 Ramratan, P.W. 2 Yashoda Devi, P.W. 3 Dr. S.C. Kaushal, P.W. 4 Gurusevak, P.W. 5 Angad Singh, P.W. 6 Retd. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer) Shambhu Singh, P.W. 7 Constable Deshraj and P.W. 8 Prabhakar Tripathi, Naib Tehsildar.

8. The statement of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have stated that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. They have also stated that they are living separately with the accused Ashok Kumar for the last 20 years as their father married twice with the mother of the accused Ashok Kumar during the life time of their mother and he ousted their mother from his house. The accused Ashok Kumar also stated that the he married with the deceased about 8 years ago. He has stated that the deceased was suffering from acute pain in stomach due to which she hanged herself. He has also stated that the accused Ram Chandra and Ram Prasad are step brother and there was property dispute and the litigation going on between them as such they are living separately from his father for the last 20 years.

9. D.W.1 Mohd Ateek and D.W.2 Srikrishna were examined in defence.

10. P.W. 1 namely Ramratan and P.W. 2 Yashoda are father and mother of the deceased and they have made general allegations against the accused persons. They have not assigned any specific role against the 5 A378 No. 96 of 2010 accused respondents Ram Chandra and Ram prasad. P.W. 1 has also deposed in his statement that the accused persons had two houses. P.W. 5 who is brother of the deceased has also deposed that at the time of death of the deceased the partition of the property has already been done between the accused Ashok Kumar and the accused Ram Chandra and Ram Prakash.

11. D.W. 1 Mohd. Ateeq and D.W. 2 Srikrishna have deposed that the accused Ram Chandra and Ram Prasad live separately from the accused Ashok Kumar as their father married with two ladies and he ousted his first wife who was mother of the accused respondents Ram Chandra and Ram Prakash from the house.

12. From perusal of the statements of the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses, this Court finds that there is property dispute between accused respondents and accused Ashok Kumar and the litigation going on between them as such the accused respondents are living separately from the accused Ashok Kumar. It is very improbable that the persons between whom there is property dispute and litigation going on, may live together. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and found that the accused Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra were living separately from the accused Ashok Kumar.

13. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal or revision against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the matter of State of Karnataka vs. K. Gopalkrishna reported in (2005) 9 SCC 6 A378 No. 96 of 2010 291, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, observed as under: "In such an appeal the Appellate Court does not lightly disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Court below. If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the Appellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal."

14. In Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus;- "31. It has been stated and restated that a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reason. There is plethora of case laws on this proposition and we need not burden this judgment by referring to those decisions.

15. On perusal of the trial court judgement and appreciating the facts and evidence and in the light of the settled legal proposition as propounded by the Apex Court we find that the judgment passed by the trial court is well reasoned and rightly acquitted the respondents.

16. Leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State is also dismissed. November 13, 2025 Shahnaz (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SHAHNAZ BANO SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Chandra were acquitted by the trial court.

3. The Leave to Appeal filed under Section 378(3) Criminal Procedure 2 A378 No. 96 of 2010 Code(In short Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated

16.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track, court no. 7, Hardoi in Session Trial No. 296A of 2007 arising out of case crime no. 154 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act, police station Baghauli, district Hardoi whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted by the trial court.

4. The F.I.R. was lodged on an application moved by the complainant Ramratan under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated that the complainant about a quarter to three years ago married his daughter namely Km. Santosh with the accused Ashok Kumar as per the hindu customs and gave dowry as per his capacity. During the marriage itself, the accused Ashok Kumar, Kailash, Chhotakki, Ram Prasad and Ramchandra demanded a motorcycle as dowry, to which, the applicant expressed his inability saying that he was poor and could not afford to give a motorcycle. After the marriage, the accused persons started taunting and threatened his daughter that if your family did not give the motorcycle, they would not allow her to live in the house. The complainant’s daughter came home on the fourth day after marriage and told everything and thereafter when she again went to the sasural the complainant also accompanied with her. The complainant made prayer to the accused Ashok Kumar and his brothers showing his inability to give motorcycle. After that whenever the daughter of the complainant used to come home, she used to talk about the motorcycle and the complainant would show his inability. For the past 6 months, Ashok, his brothers and sisters have been repeatedly calling the applicant's nephew, Surendra on his phone and threatening to kill his daughter if he does not give a 3 A378 No. 96 of 2010 motorcycle.

5. It is further stated in the application that on 8.11.06 at 7.30 pm, the Complainant got the news on phone that his daughter has committed suicide. When the applicant along-with Surendra and Gurushevak arrived at the village, they found the applicant's daughter hanging and no one from the family of her in-laws was present. The applicant reported the incident to the police station whereupon the police arrived. They had taken his thumb impression on a blank sheet of paper, assured him of a report, and stated that his report had been filed but three months passed and no action was taken in the applicant's case. On 20.11.2006, the complainant moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, but no action was taken. After this, on 29.12.06, the complainant also gave application to the Inspector General of Police, Human Rights Commission, Hon'ble Governor and Honorable Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Government but when no action was taken, the complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.(Ext. Ka-1) to register the report.

6. The court directed the police to register the report. The police registered the F.I.R.(Ext. Ka-6) on 9.4.2007 at 9.15 a.m. against the accused Ashok Kumar, Kailash, Chhotakki, Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra. The investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Ashok Kumar under Sections 498, 304-B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act. The other co-accused person namely Kailash, Chhotakki, Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., however the accused Kailash, Chhotakki, Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra did not 4 A378 No. 96 of 2010 appear and their cases were separated from the case of accused Ashok Kumar. Moreover, the co-accused persons namely Kailash and Chhotakki were declared Juvenile vide order dated 5.8.2008 passed by the learned trial court and their case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

7. To prove the case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :- P.W. 1 Ramratan, P.W. 2 Yashoda Devi, P.W. 3 Dr. S.C. Kaushal, P.W. 4 Gurusevak, P.W. 5 Angad Singh, P.W. 6 Retd. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer) Shambhu Singh, P.W. 7 Constable Deshraj and P.W. 8 Prabhakar Tripathi, Naib Tehsildar.

8. The statement of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have stated that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. They have also stated that they are living separately with the accused Ashok Kumar for the last 20 years as their father married twice with the mother of the accused Ashok Kumar during the life time of their mother and he ousted their mother from his house. The accused Ashok Kumar also stated that the he married with the deceased about 8 years ago. He has stated that the deceased was suffering from acute pain in stomach due to which she hanged herself. He has also stated that the accused Ram Chandra and Ram Prasad are step brother and there was property dispute and the litigation going on between them as such they are living separately from his father for the last 20 years.

9. D.W.1 Mohd Ateek and D.W.2 Srikrishna were examined in defence.

10. P.W. 1 namely Ramratan and P.W. 2 Yashoda are father and mother of the deceased and they have made general allegations against the accused persons. They have not assigned any specific role against the 5 A378 No. 96 of 2010 accused respondents Ram Chandra and Ram prasad. P.W. 1 has also deposed in his statement that the accused persons had two houses. P.W. 5 who is brother of the deceased has also deposed that at the time of death of the deceased the partition of the property has already been done between the accused Ashok Kumar and the accused Ram Chandra and Ram Prakash.

11. D.W. 1 Mohd. Ateeq and D.W. 2 Srikrishna have deposed that the accused Ram Chandra and Ram Prasad live separately from the accused Ashok Kumar as their father married with two ladies and he ousted his first wife who was mother of the accused respondents Ram Chandra and Ram Prakash from the house.

12. From perusal of the statements of the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses, this Court finds that there is property dispute between accused respondents and accused Ashok Kumar and the litigation going on between them as such the accused respondents are living separately from the accused Ashok Kumar. It is very improbable that the persons between whom there is property dispute and litigation going on, may live together. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and found that the accused Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra were living separately from the accused Ashok Kumar.

13. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal or revision against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the matter of State of Karnataka vs. K. Gopalkrishna reported in (2005) 9 SCC 6 A378 No. 96 of 2010 291, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, observed as under: "In such an appeal the Appellate Court does not lightly disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Court below. If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the Appellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal."

14. In Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus;- "31. It has been stated and restated that a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reason. There is plethora of case laws on this proposition and we need not burden this judgment by referring to those decisions.

15. On perusal of the trial court judgement and appreciating the facts and evidence and in the light of the settled legal proposition as propounded by the Apex Court we find that the judgment passed by the trial court is well reasoned and rightly acquitted the respondents.

16. Leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State is also dismissed. November 13, 2025 Shahnaz (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SHAHNAZ BANO SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench