The High Court considered a Criminal Misc. Application for leave to appeal an acquittal in a dowry death case. The Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding the prosecution failed to prove torture immediately preceding death. No interference was permitted.
Leave to appeal is rejected; the memorandum of appeal is dismissed.
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.
Chief Justice’s Court Daily Cause List Serial No.41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Lucknow)
U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 352 of 2005
State of U.P.
....Applicant
Through:- Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate
V/s
Narendra Kumar Shukla and others ...Opposite parties
CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JUDGE
ORDER
NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.
2 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 352 of 2005
Narendra Kumar Shukla, Pratap Narain Shukla, Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Sumitra Devi from the charges under Sections 498A & 304B I.P.C.
3 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 352 of 2005
framed against the accused persons in the Court of Sessions. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial.
4 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 352 of 2005
were demanding Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry, as was agreed at the time of marriage. On failure to fulfill their demand, the family members of in-laws of Mridula killed and hanged her body with fan is also revealed from the evidence of witnesses of fact that after the marriage in 1995 the deceased went to her matrimonial home in 1998 in her vidai. It has been alleged that at the time of marriage, the demand of Rs. 50,000/more was raised by accused-persons as dowry, for which the informant has assured that it shall be paid after some time as at that time he was in financial crises, contrary to the same it has not been mentioned by the prosecution witnesses that from the date of marriage, within three years or at the time of vidai any demand of additional dowry was again raised/ reminded by accused persons or not. If, such demand is not raised earlier then what was the reason to raise such demand of additional dowry after six years. It has also been revealed that accused Pratap Narain Shukla, who was a retired person from Army, has himself given his earning to his children by way of Kisan Vikas Patra. One Kisan Vikas Patra for Rs. 50,000/- was prepared in the name of Surendra Mohan Shukla and Smt. Sumitra Shukla, two Kisan Vikas Patra each for Rs.50,000/- prepared in the name of Kajal and Payal daughters of Surendra Mohan Shukla. One Kisan Vikas Patra for Rs. 50,000/- was prepared in the name of Narendra Mohan Shukla and Mridula Shukla (deceased) which were delivered to them by Pratap Narain Shukla, the father-in-law of the deceased, but deceased was not satisfied. She was mother of an infant child and was insisting his father-in-law to give Rs. 50,000/- to her son also, as Pratap Narain Shukla had given Rs.1 lac to daughters of her Jeth Surendra Mohan Shukla but Pratap Narain Shukla did not fulfill her demand.
5 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 352 of 2005
matrimonial dispute between husband and wife the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Since, father-in-law of deceased Pratap Narain Shukla was having sufficient means and he himself had distributed his retiral benefits and earning to his sons, daughters-in-law, grand daughters, hence in absence of any cogent evidence, it is not proved that deceased was subjected to torture due to demand of Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry.
6 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 352 of 2005
probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits.
(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
Lucknow December 9, 2021 Reena/P.Sri.
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Digitally signed by REENA KANNAUJIYA Date: 2022.02.24 18:25:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the State's appeal against the trial court's acquittal of accused persons underSections 498A and 304B IPC.
Whether the trial court's conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove aggravation or torture soon before the death was a probable view.
Whether the impugned judgment is an erroneous judgment devoid of merits warranting interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrappa and others vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶35
Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka; (2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
Sampat Babso Kale and others vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶35
Sampat Babso Kale and others vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 2019 SC 1852 · Who else cites this
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and othersReferred¶35
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2016) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of U.P.
Narendra Kumar Shukla
Pratap Narain Shukla
Smt. Shanti Devi
Smt. Sumitra Devi
Rajesh Bindal
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
