Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Damodar and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2020GOVA/503/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court was appealed against the acquittal of respondents in a case of dowry death and murder. The Court held that the trial court's finding was based on a plausible view and was not perverse. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court ruled that there were no substantial reasons to disturb the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondents is dismissed at the admission stage.

State of U.P. Vs Damodar and 2 Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. 48

¶2

Government Appeal No. 503 of 2	019
State of Uttar Pradesh -----	Appellant
Vs
1. Damodar
2. Khacher Singh
3. Guddo Devi -----	Respondents
_____________________________________________ For Appellants : Sri O.P. Mishra, AGA	________________
For Respondents : None

¶3

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

¶4

Per: Pritinker Diwaker, J. (05.02.2020)

¶5

Heard on admission.

¶6

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 11.07.2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Kasganj in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2016 acquitting the respondents under Sections 489-A, 304-B alternatively Section 302 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶7

In the present case, name of deceased is Anjali wife of Damodar accused-respondent no.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 12.05.2011 and she died in her matrimonial house on 14.09.2015 by hanging herself. Two written reports were lodged by one Kishan Dev, father of the deceased, first on 14.09.2015 and the second on 16.09.2015. However, in the first report, there is no allegation against the accused persons bringing home the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents and while framing the charge, the trial judge has framed the charge against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B and alternatively 302 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶8

So as to hold accused-persons guilty, prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses, whereas two defence witnesses have been examined. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which, they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

¶9

By the impugned judgment, the trial judge has acquitted the respondents of all the charges. Hence, this appeal by the State. 6. Counsel for the State-appellant submits that the trial court has erred in law in acquitting the respondents. 7. We have heard the State counsel and also perused the record.

¶10

Undisputedly, two reports have been lodged by PW-1 Kishan Dev, father of the deceased. In the first report, he merely seeks proper enquiry regarding the cause of death of her daughter, whereas in the second report, he makes allegations against the accused persons. In the court, the prosecution witnesses have failed to prove the basic ingredients of Section 304 of IPC, in particular, soon before the death, deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. It has also come in evidence that as the deceased pressurized her husband to live separately, the couple was living separately outside the village. Further, it has come in evidence that the gate of the room in which deceased committed suicide was broke open and then the body of the deceased was taken out. The defence witnesses have also stated that deceased was having illicit relation with one Dr. Manoj and out of shame, she might have committed suicide.

¶11

Considering all the aspects of the case, the trial court has found that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused persons warranting their conviction for any offence and according to court below, present appears to be a case of suicide. The view taken by the court below is one of the possible and plausible view, and it cannot be said to be perverse.

¶12

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 of the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse

¶13

¶14

the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the matter of State of Karnataka vs. K. Gopalkrishna , reported in (2005) 9 SCC 291, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, observed as under:

¶15

"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 evnidence 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."

¶16

In Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal , reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus;-

¶17

"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. Our purpose would be served by referring to one reasoned pronouncement entitled Dhanapal v. State which is the judgment where most of the earlier decisions laying down the aforesaid principle are referred to. In para 37, propositions laid down in an earlier case are taken note of as under: -

¶18

"37. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, this Court held: (SCC p. 432 para 42)

¶19

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances",

¶22

¶23

"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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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."

¶26

32. Thereafter, in para 39, the Court curled out five principles and we would like to reproduce the said para hereunder: (Dhanapal case, SCC p. 414)

¶27

"39. The following principles emerge from the cases above:

¶28

(1) The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

¶29

(2) The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re- appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court.

¶30

(3) The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial

¶31

¶32

court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

¶33

(4) The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

¶34

(5) If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.”

¶35

In Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana , (2015) 1 SCC 737, the Supreme Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36 and 37 as under :

¶36

"36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record.

¶37

37. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: (SCC p.432 para 42)

¶38

"42....(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.

¶39

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate

¶40

¶41

court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

¶42

Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram."

¶43

Considering the above legal position and the factual aspects of the case, we are of the view that the trial judge was fully justified in acquitting the accused-respondents.

¶44

Taking all the circumstances as it is, leave as prayed for by the State is refused. Hence the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶45

Dated: 05.02.2020 C.Mani/ RK

¶46

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J) (Pritinker Diwaker, J)

¶47

State of U.P. v. Damodar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Damodar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Reena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanoj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Marut Nandan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others