The State appealed the acquittal of respondents accused under sections 498A, 304-B, and others of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court examined the scope of interference and found no substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the finding.
The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage; the order of acquittal stands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. 48
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 512 of 2019
State of Uttar Pradesh ----Appellant Vs 1. Smt. Sunita 2. Rajesh 3. Smt. Priyanka ----Respondents
____________________________________________________ For Appellant : Sri Amit Sinha, AGA For Respondents : None
________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.
Per: Pritinker Diwaker, J. (20.01.2020)
2
Sections 498A, 304-B, 307/34, 506 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3
evidence to be insufficient for holding the accused persons guilty for any offence, the trial court has granted them benefit of doubt. Even the demand of dowry has not been proved by the prosecution and likewise, homicidal death of the deceased has also not been proved.
"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."
"31.It has been stated and restated that a cardinal
4
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: -
"37. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , this Court held: ( SCC p. 432 para 42), (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(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.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "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.
(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.
(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."
5
"39. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
"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.
6
as under: (SCC p.432 para 42) "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.
(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."
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."
Dated: 20.01.2020 nethra/ C.Mani
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J) (Pritinker Diwaker, J)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's order of acquittal in an appeal by the State.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the prosecution's case against the respondents.
Whether the finding of acquittal falls within the double presumption in favour of the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Uttar Pradesh
Smt. Sunita
Rajesh
Smt. Priyanka
Pritinker Diwaker
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
