Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Chetan Brit Sharma and others

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2021GOVA/2086/1984

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against acquittal of the accused of charges of rioting and attempt to murder arising from the beating of a wife over unmet dowry demands. The court found the prosecution witnesses' accounts contradictory and inconsistent with the medical evidence, held the motive weak, and dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Government Appeal dismissed; the order of acquittal dated 31.03.1984 affirmed.

State of U.P. Vs Chetan Brit Sharma and others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

COURT NO.48

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2086 of 1984

¶4

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Chetan Dutt Sharma Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A. Counsel for Respondent :- Anshu Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

(Delivered by Hon’ble Deepak Verma, J.)

¶7

Vide Court’s order dated 25.04.2012, the present Government Appeal against respondent no.1 Chetan Brat Sharma has already been abated as he died during the pendency of this appeal.

¶8

Heard learned A.G.A and Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the accused-respondent.

¶9

This appeal has been filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State against the judgment and order dated 31.03.1984 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No.9 of 1982 (State Vs. Chetan Brat Sharma & others), under Sections 147, 307 & 149 IPC, Police Station Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad, by which the respondent nos. 1 to 5 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

¶10

State has preferred the present appeal on the ground that trial court has not applied its judicial mind and has wrongly acquitted the appellants. Learned A.G.A. in support of the appeal submits that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and it is against the weight of evidence on record. Learned trial court has erroneously passed the impugned order while discarding the prosecution evidence.

¶11

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the father of the victim Smt. Surekha Sharma filed FIR in Police Station Shahibabad on 20.07.1980 at 4.45 p.m. that victim, the daughter of the complainant was assaulted by the accused-persons with intention to kill her as she was unable to fulfil

¶12

¶13

the demands of her in-laws for Rs.20,000/- in cash as well as a fridge and scooter. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons used to beat the victim with danda, fist, kicks and used to lock her in a room of the house for getting their demands fulfilled by her parents. After completion of engineering course by Dev Brat Sharma (son-in-law), the act of torture to his daughter had increased. On 20.07.1980 at about 9.00 a.m., the accused persons after beating her severely, threw her out of the house and many persons including the witnesses saw the incident and phoned the complainant, who resides in Delhi and when he reached the spot, he saw that her daughter was lying with bleeding injuries. Informant was informed by injured Surekha Sharma that she was beaten with intention to kill her thereafter she was left outside the house. Thereafter injured Smt. Surekha Sharma was taken to police station where written FIR has been lodged. On 20.07.1980, injured Smt. Surekha Sharma was taken to M.G.Hospital, Ghaziabad, where medical examination was performed by the doctor. Thereafter, she was admitted in Women Hospital, Ghaziabad.

¶14

Raghunath Singh, Investigating Officer, P.W.-8, who conducted the enquiry, submitted charge-sheet and charges were framed under sections 147 & 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Prosecution produced nine witnesses namely Brahma Nand Sharma, P.W.-1, Sukhbir Singh, P.W.-2, Smt.Surekha Sharma, P.W.-3, L.C.Kapoor, P.W.-4, Major retired R.K.Tiwari, P.W.-5, Ram Pal Singh, P.W.-6, Dr.K.K.Karauli P.W.-7, Raghunath Singh, retired S.I. P.W.-8 and Dr. Mrs.A.M.Tandon, P.W.-9. Out of nine witnesses, four witnesses are witnesses of fact. The accused persons denied charges and pleaded not guilty and alleged their false implication due to enmity with the witnesses.

¶15

Victim Surekha Sharma was examined by Dr.K.K.Karauli. Injury report shows that the victim have five injuries over her body on 20.07.1980.

¶16

Statement of witnesses

¶17

Brahma Nand Sharma (father of the victim Smt.Surekha Sharma), P.W.-1 has deposed that he solemnized marriage of his daughter with accused Dev Brat Sharma on 08.02.1975 and he spent about Rs.35,000/- in her marriage.

¶18

¶19

After sometime of marriage, behaviour of in-laws towards Surekha Sharma was not good and strained and they often asked her to get/bring amount of Rs.20,000/- in addition to fridge and scooter. On the injured Surekha Sharma informing that the demands could not be fulfilled by her father, they used lathi, danda, shoes and electric shock. He next deposed that all these facts had been detailed to him by his daughter and he also received information from neighbours about ill treatment meted but to Smt. Surekha Sharma by her in laws and husband. He deposed that in 1978, he had fulfilled the demand of a fridge, still the in laws were not happy with Smt. Surekha and consistently demanded Rs.20,000/-. He next deposed that a panchayat was done on 06.07.1980 in which accused Dev Brat had given written assurance that he would not physically or mentally harass his wife Smt. Surekha Sharma. Dev Brat submitted written apology before Panchayat. On 20.07.1980 he received a telephone call regarding beating of his daughter. He reached to the spot at about 12.30, where he found Smt.Surekha Sharma was lying semi conscious and a crowd was present there. After getting information from the persons present on the spot, he immediately went to the police station alongwith his daughter where report was lodged. The accused had ran away after locking their house. He stated that when marriage was settled, accused Dev Brat was studying Engineering. He got information from Sukhbir Singh by telephone between 9.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. On the spot no one was present from the accused side. Report was lodged by P.W.-1 and same was written in the small room of SHO. He denied the suggestion that daughter Smt.Surekha was interested to live alone, therefore, present story had been concocted.

¶20

Sukhbir Singh @ Raj Singh, s/o Dal Singh, P.W.-2 resident of accused’s colony, deposed on oath that he had seen the incident. Accused were beating Smt.Surekha Sharma. He deposed that he seen blood was coming out from her hand and various mark of injury over the body and he informed the family of Smt. Surekha Sharma by telephone. At the place of incident, Sri K.L.Sharma, Shri Krishna, Major Tiwari, Dr.Ramesh Pal, V.M.H. Pal

¶21

¶22

Harvindra Singh Sardar, Anand etc. were present and incident occurred before them. All tried to stop them. He next deposed that in panchyat, he was one of the witness and when Paper Exhibit Kha-2 paper No.5 had shown to him, he admitted Exhibit Ka-2. He next deposed that from his house, is situated after five away from the house of the accused. He works in Sima Puri Government Higher Secondary School and his school timing was 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. He deposed that Surekha Sharma was being beaten by kicks, fist and danda in front of him and Danda (stick) was in the hand of Dev Brat Sharma. Six to seven times stick was used upon Smt.Surekha Sharma. Other accused were empty hand. He further states that he got phone number of the informant from Chetan Brat Sharma. Report was registered at 11.30 a.m. On that day he went to office late. He made application for late coming and reached school at 12 p.m. In cross examination, he has denied suggestion that he was interested to take Chetan Brat’s house on rent and is, therefore, supporting him. Blood was oozing from the body of Smt.Surekha Sharma. Clothes were not torned and strained by blood. When he reached to the spot, Surekha Sharma was speaking and she became unconscious for five to seven minutes, thereafter, remain conscious. All went to police station by K.L.Sharma’s car, I went to police station by motorcycle with Major Tiwari. Injured was not examined before me.

¶23

Smt.Surekha Sharma (injured), P.W.-3 deposed that her marriage was solemnized with Dev Brat Sharma on 08.07.1975. On 20^th July, 1980, the date of incident, she was in the house of in-laws at Shahibabad. In-laws were demanding television, fridge and Rs.20,000/- as cash. Fridge was given by father but rest of the demand could not be fulfilled. On that account they often beat with danda, shoes and chappals and gave her electric shocks. Often I slept with empty stomach in a locked room. On the day on which my mother-in-law or husband did physically assault her, my father-in-law asked my husband and mother-in-law “begum aaj tum bahu ka manoranjan kiya ya nahi.” That means physical assault had been made or not. On instruction of father-in-law, my husband and my mother-in-law used to beat me. In the

¶24

¶25

night of 19.07.1980 my husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law had beaten me with danda, chappal and shoes and gave electric shock. On the morning of 20.07.1980 they had again beaten me. When I asked them why all of you are beating me, then they said we want to kill you as you had not fulfilled our demand. My husband asked me to borrow Rs.20,000/- from my father for studying Engineering abroad. He always put the demand of the said amount when my mother and father visited my house. Three days before the date of incident they mixed some tablet in my tea, due to which I felt drowsy and had a headache. When I asked my husband what given in the tea, then he told his mother not to worry, I will kill her. I swallowed the tablets due to fear that they would beat me. On the date of incident my husband wanted to kill me, attacked with knife and tried to stab me in stomach. My husband used to say that he would kill her get married again. My mother-in-law also used to say that she will bring another daughter-in-law. They compelled her to write six letters, stating there that she wanted to commit suicide and that her father and mother were not good persons. In the letters they compelled her to write that my in-laws are good and my father and mother are bad persons. She was not even allowed to go outside. The people outside were watching me when I was beaten. A panchayat was held in my in-laws house on 6^th July, 1980 in which my husband and his parents apologized in writing. On the day of incident, my in-laws kicked me out of the house. At that time I became unconscious. On that day at about 11.45 a.m. my father and some other persons came to my in-laws house. Nobody was present from the side of my in-laws when my father came. About 100-150 persons had gathered around. Some people took me to the police station by car. My father lodged FIR against my in-laws. Doctor had conducted medical examination of injuries on my body. Lady doctor examined my whole body.

¶26

In cross she has stated that pills were often given to her before 20.07.1988. She was give pills thrice a day, mixed with tea. Blood came out of the wound on her. Blood was coming out from mouth. Saree, blouse and

¶27

¶28

peticoat were blood stained. Blood stained clothes were not given to Investigating Officer.

¶29

At the time of marriage, my father had given me Rs.15,000/- cash, sofa-set, radio, ceiling fan, double bed, utensils & five tola gold.

¶30

In the night of 19.07.1980, she was beaten the whole night and continued to beat her till 9.00 a.m on 20.07.1980. She went to her parents house after discharge from hospital. She did not show the crime scene to the police. The police enquired from her on the date of incident, at the police station. She denied that she does not want to live her in-laws house. It is wrong to say that she gave all her jewellery to her father which was given by her in-laws. She denied having asked her husband to live separate from his parents.

¶31

P.W.-4 L.C.Kapoor resident of locality of accused deposed that Surekha Sharma is daughter-in-law of Chetan Brat Sharma. Accused used to beat and harass Smt.Surekha Sharma. Panchyat in this regard was held in the colony and in-laws of Smt.Surekha Sharma had apologised in the panchyat.

¶32

On 20.07.1980 at 9.00 a.m. I was at my home, some women of the locality ran towards the house of Chetan Brat. They asked me that lottery wale Chetan Brat Sharma is beating her daughter-in-law. Chetan Brat Sharma as known as “Lottery wale” because he had business of selling lottery. When he reached the house of Chetan Brat Sharma, he saw that Chetan Brat Sharma beating Surekha Sharma by lathi and blood was flowing from the elbow of Surekha Sharma. Slowly several persons gathered there. He saw the accused on the roof. When he reached there, all accused persons had gone somewhere after closing the door. Surekha Sharma regained consciousness after filtering water and administering glucose. Surekha’s father and brother, reached there at about 12 noon. They took Surekha Sharma to the police station where father of Surekha Sharma lodged FIR against her in-laws and where she was examined by doctor. He heard that due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand for money for studying abroad by her husband, Surekha Sharma was often beaten.

¶33

¶34

P.W.-4 resides in same colony and is familiar with accused since 1976, but had no knowledge of the houses between his house and that of the accused. P.W-4 is facing vision problems since 20.07.1980. He saw Chetan Brat, his wife, daughter and sons were in their rooms. Smt. Surekha Sharma was also inside the room. He was present when Smt. Surekha Sharma’s family reached there on being informed by Sharmaji.

¶35

R.K.Tiwari, P.W.-5 is also resident of same locality. He deposed that he has lived at Sector 3, 8/273 Shahibabad, Rajendra Nagar Colony, from July 1980. He was familiar with accused persons. His house is situate after one house from that of accused and knew that Surekha is the wife of accused Deb Brat. On 20^th July, 1980 at 9.00 a.m. he was going to his office. When he reached near the house of Chetan Brat Sharma, he heard cries of “bachao-bachao” and Chetan Brat Sharma and his wife were loudly saying “mar do”. Cheatan Brat was beating Smt.Surekha Sharma with stick and other accused persons were beating Surekha Sharma with fists. Chetan Brat Sharma was saying that if she would not fetch Rs.20,000/- they would kill her. P.W.4 and other persons intervened and tried to stop marpeet. They dragged Surekha out of the house on the road. He sent one person to police station Shahibabad. He sent information to father of Surekha Sharma by phone because the condition of Smt.Surekha Sharma was serious. All accused persons left their house stating that we are going to police. Surekha’s hand was bleeding from the cut by a sharp weapon and she was unconscious. She had bruises on her face. Even before this incident, Surekha Sharma was tortured. The residents of Rajendra Nagar colony tried to reason with the accused persons several times but to no avail. The accused gave assurance that they would not repeat the same but in vain. On 06.07.1980, a panchayat was held at Rajendra Nagar colony in which Chetan Brat Sharma and his son Dev Brat Sharma were present there and gave an undertaking and extended apology. Both of them gave assurance before the panchayat that they would not misbehave with Smt.Surekha Sharma in

¶36

¶37

future. On 20^th July, 1980 the accused persons locked their house and went to Delhi.

¶38

R.K.Tiwari, P.W. 5 has deposed that from January 1978 to October 1980, he lived at Rajendra Nagar colony. Accused Chetan Brat Sharma was living in colony before I came. I was tenant of Mr. Subhash Chandra. I am doing job in Mohan Mikins at Mohan Nagar. Surekha’s brother Kewal Krishna is also doing job in Mohan Mikins. In my presence Surekha’s father and brother never came in the house of accused persons. His office hours is from 9.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. On the date of incident, I was on my duty. When he reached the place of incident, the accused persons were beating Smt.Surekha Sharma in the room. 6-7 persons already present there. All the three doors were closed from inside when Surekha was being beaten but the windows were open. He asked the accused from the window to stop mar-peet. Then he called the police and also informed the parents of Smt.Surekha Sharma. Chetan Brat threatened that if any one interfered, he would also be beaten. Chetan Brat and Dev Brat brought Smt.Surekha Sharma outside in an unconscious condition.

¶39

Before this incident, he had never visited the house of Chetan Brat. Instead of going to police station he went straight to his office from the place of incident. He returned from office at around 7.00 p.m. The Inspector never enquired from him about the incident in the police station. After the incident, he never met Surekha’s father. He meets Keval Krishna, brother of Smt.Surekha Sharma almost everyday.

¶40

At the time of incident, he saw a wooden stick in the hand of accused Chetan Brat, shoe in the hand of accused Dev Brat and sharp-edged weapon in the hand of accused Satya Brat. All the accused were beating Smt.Surekha Sharma before me. Except this mar peet, he never saw nor heard any other thing. He has denied deposing due to some enmity with Chetan Brat or that on the date of incident, he was not on duty during office hours.

¶41

Ram Pal Singh, Constable P.W.-6 has deposed that on July 1980, he was posted as Head Moharir at Police Station Shahibabad. He made chik FIR on

¶42

¶43

the basis of Exhibit Ka-1 and signed it. He knows the handwriting and signature of constable Shyam Pal Singh, who has worked with him. He is familiar with the handwriting and signature of Constable Shyam Pal.

¶44

On 12.09.1983, Constable Ram Pal Singh deposed that the report was not written in the police station but it was brought written from outside. The report was given by Brahmanand. He does not know who scribed it. In the police station Brahmanand and the injured were accompanied by five persons.

¶45

Dr.K.K.Karuli, P.W.-7 has deposed that on 20.07.1980, he was posted as Medical Officer at M.M.G. Hospital at Ghaziabad. He has examined the injuries of Smt.Surekha Sharma, w/o Dev Brat Sharma, aged 22 years and has proved the injury report Exhibit Ka-6.

¶46

All the injuries found were caused by blunt object. Only injury no.6 which was fresh could be caused by sharp-edged weapon. In the letter for medical examination, name of Dev Brat Sharma was shown as husband of victim Smt.Surekha Sharma but the victim mentioned her husband’s name as Dev Dutt Sharma. As such Dev Dutt Sharma had been written on the injury report. There is no possibility of death being caused by simple injuries. If the injury no.6 was on the chest, then there is possibility of death. He had enquired from Smt.Surekha Sharma about the injuries. When the deceased was brought to hospital for medical check-up, she was conscious. He had not seen any burn injury on the body of the deceased. At that time, injured had not said anything about electric shock and neither he had stated anything in this regard. All the injuries caused to the deceased could be before six hours old. All the injuries caused to the deceased are simple in nature. If somebody was able to tolerate pain, the injuries found on the body of the deceased, could have been manufactured.

¶47

Raghunath Singh, S.I., P.W.-8 has deposed that he was posted as S.I. at the police station Shahibabad. The investigation of this case was handed over to him. He recorded statements of Brahmanand Sharma, Smt.Surekha, Sukhbir Singh, L.C.Kapoor & Ram Pal Singh at Police Station on 20.07.1980.

¶48

¶49

Statement of R.K.Tiwari was taken on 31.8.1980. He visited the spot and made site plan as Exhibit Ka-7. After investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused on 01.09.1980. Statement of Smt. Surekha Sharma under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

¶50

When P.W.-8 reached the spot on 20.07.1980 at about 6.15 in the evening, the name of the person, who pointed out the spot of occurrence, has not been mentioned in the case diary. Spot inspection was on the basis of information given by the residents of the colony. He is unaware whether Surekha’s brother and father were present at the spot of incident or not. During investigation he did not even open the locks; the door of the house opens due west. The rooms are not shown in the site plan.

¶51

He was given Exhibit Ka-2, the apology letter written by Dev Brat in his hand writing was given to him during investigation.

¶52

Dr.(Mrs.) A.M.Tandon, P.W.9 deposed that she was posted as G.D. M.O. in District Women Hospital, Ghaziabad. Smt.Surekha Sharma, w/o Dev Brat Sharma, was brought by Megh Singh, C.P. No.272, Police Station Shaibabad before her. Dr. Karauli sent her to me for internal check-up. During internal check-up of Smt.Surekha Sharma, I found no internal injury.

¶53

Accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and claimed that they are innocent and had been falsely implicated due to enmity. No incident as alleged, occurred on 20.07.1980. At the time of incident, victim was not living with them. She was living with her parents. The allegation of a panchyat was denied and it was alleged that Exhibit Ka-2 is forged and fabricated. Accused in his defence produced Sri J.P.Sharma, D.W.-1. D.W.-1 has stated that on 20.07.1980, accused Chetan Sharma was present in the office and he remained there from 8.30 to 10.30 in the morning and his presence was endorsed in the register and various questions were put but he could not give proper reply.

¶54

Learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad after perusing the evidence and statement of witnesses produced by prosecution as well as defence acquitted

¶55

¶56

the accused/opposite parties nos. 1 to 5 of the charges under sections 147 and 307 I.P.C. on 31.03.1984.

¶57

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶58

Learned AGA contended that there are nine witnesses examined before trial court. P.W.-1 is father of the victim. P.W.-3 is injured, P.W.-2, 4 & 5 are neighbours of the accused persons. He submitted that on account of statement of injured P.W.-3 alone, it is clear that the opposite parties were liable to be convicted but trial court wrongly discard the testimony of the injured as well as other witness produced by prosecution, who are neighbours. He next argued that injured has received a serious injury and doctor opined that it was caused by sharp edged weapon. Observation of the trial court that the said injury can be manufactured, cannot be accepted. He next argued that it is a matter where demand for dowry was consistently made by opposite party nos.1 to 5, and due to such demand, victim was ill treated and harassed and there was intention to kill her. Thereafter, FIR was lodged promptly and Dr.K.K.Karauli, who examined the injured had opined that injury received on front side of the hand could be caused by a sharp edged weapon. Except injury no.6, all injuries are simple in nature.

¶59

Learned AGA argued that injury received by injured and statement of the injured, are corroborating. The Session Judge without applying judicial mind acquitted the opposite party no.2. As such, the judgement of acquittal is perverse and deserves to be set aside.

¶60

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 contended that from the recital of FIR, it is apparent that injury caused over hand is not on vital part and there is no intention to kill the injured. Of the six injuries, five injuries are simple in nature not caused by a blunt object like lathi, danda. One injury was found to be caused by a sharp edged weapon but doctor has opined that it could be manufactured if person was capable of bearing pain. Dr. K.K.Karauli, who had examined the injured has found following injuries on the body of the injured.

¶61

¶62

"मै 28-7-80 को बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंबतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंमै डि�कल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंअफसर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंएम०एस०जी०अस्पताल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंगाडिजयाबाद मेंमें तै नातथा। मैने उस दिन शाम के मै ने उस दिन शाम के उसडिद मेंनशामके उस दिन शाम के 6-25 बजे उस दिन शाम के श्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंमडितसुर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंे उस दिन शाम के खाशमा# पत्नीश्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंद मंवद मेंत्त े शमा# उम्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद में 22 साल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंडिनवासीर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद मेंजे उस दि न शाम के द में्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंसै क्टर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद में -3, मकाननं० 269 थानासाडि+बाबाद में डिजल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद मेंगाडिजयाबाद मेंकीचो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंका�ाक्ट्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंमुआयनाडिकया। मैने उस दिन शाम के मै ने उस दिन शाम के मजरू+ाके उस दिन शाम के शर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंपर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद में डिनम्नचो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटेंपायी। मैने उस दिन शाम के

¶63

1- वम# सूजनडिसर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंपर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंबीचमेंतथापीछे उस दिन शाम के के उस दिन शाम के डि+स्से उस दिन शाम के में। मैने उस दिन शाम के

¶64

2- कई नीलगू निशान बांयी तरफ कमर पर बीच के व निचले हिस्से पर बीच की नील अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल ग डिनशानबांयीतर मैडिकल अ फ कमर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंपर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंबीचके उस दिन शाम के वडिनचल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद म े ंडि+स्से उस दिन शाम के पर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंबीचकी ल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद मेंई न से उस दिन शाम के बा+र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंकीओर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंप्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्प त ाल गाजियाबाद मेंये उस दिन शाम क कीनाप 4x1 सै ०मी०। मैने उस दिन शाम के

¶65

3- कई नीलगू निशान बांयी तरफ कमर पर बीच के व निचले हिस्से पर बीच की नील अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल ग डिनशानसीधीतर मैडिकल अ फ कमर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंपर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंबीचके उस दिन शाम के वनीचे उस दिन शाम के के उस दिन शाम के डि+स्से उस दिन शाम के पर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंपत्ये उस दिन शाम क कानाप 4 सै ०मी० x 1 सै ०मी०। मैने उस दिन शाम के

¶66

4- वम# सूजनवद मेंद में# कीडिशकायतबतायी, द मेंो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंनों घुटनों पर सारे हिस्से में।घुटनों घुटनों पर सारे हिस्से में।पर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंसार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंे उस दिन शाम के डि+स्से उस दिन शाम के में। मैने उस दिन शाम के

¶67

5- पे उस दिन शाम के टमेंद मेंद में# कीडिशकायतबनीच े उस दिन शाम के से उस दिन शाम के खूनब+ने उस दिन शाम के कीडिशकायतबतल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद मेंयी। मैने उस दिन शाम के जनाने उस दिन शाम के अस्पाताल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंके उस दिन शाम के डिल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजि य जांचके उस दिन शाम के डिल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजि य र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद मेंयद मेंी। मैने उस दिन शाम के

¶68

6- सीधीतर मैडिकल अ फ अग्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंबाजूपर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंकटा+ुआजख्म 3 सै ०मी० x ल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद मेंइनद मेंार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंवखाल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद में तकग+र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद में। मैने उस दिन शाम के

¶69

सार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंचो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटेंसाद मेंाकुन्द मेंाल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंेंकीथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के डिसवाचो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटनं० 6 जो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंडिकते उस दिन शाम के जधार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंचीजसे उस दिन शाम के +ो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद में सकतीथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के समयल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल ग ाजियाबाद मेंभगकीगयीथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के मजरू+ काडिनशानीअगूंठामौजूद में +ै । मैने उस दिन शाम के डिर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस् प ताल गाजियाबाद मेंो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंट# बर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजिया ब ाद मेंक्तमुआयनातै यार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंकीगयीथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के मे उस दिन शाम के र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंडिल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंखीवद मेंस्तख्ती+ै । मैने उस दिन शाम के इसपर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंप्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबा द मेंश# क-6 �ाल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद मेंगया। मैने उस दिन शाम के

¶70

डिचट्ठीमजरू+ कीसाडि+बाबाद मेंथाने उस दिन शाम के से उस दिन शाम के आयीथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के इसको बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंकास्टे उस दिन शाम के बल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंगे उस द िन शाम के ाडिस+ँ 271 सी०पी०थानासाडि+बाबाद मेंल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मंकर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंआये उस दिन शाम के थे उस दिन शाम के । मैने उस दिन शाम के डिचट्ठीमजरू+ मेंमजरू+ाके उस दिन शाम के े पडितकानामश्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंद म े ंववृतशमा# डिल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंखा+ै । मैने उस दिन शाम के ल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मंडिकनमजरू+ाने उस दिन शाम के अपने उस दिन शाम के पडितका े नामद मंवद मेंत्तशमा# +ीबतायाथा। मैने उस दिन शाम के जो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंडिकमै ने उस दिन शाम के इन्जर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज े ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंडिर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस् प ताल गाजियाबाद मेंो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंट# मेंडिल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंखडिद मेंया+ै । मैने उस दिन शाम के डिचट्ठीमजरू+ मुझे उस दिन शाम के थानासाडि+बाबाद मेंसे उस दिन शाम के प्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद मेंप्त+ुयीथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के साधार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंण अवस्था अवस्था मेंइनचो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंसे उस दिन शाम के मृत्युसंभवन+ीं+ै । मैने उस दिन शाम के यडिद मेंचो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटनं० 6 सीने उस दिन शाम के पर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल ग ाजियाबाद मेंी+ो ब त ौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंीतो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंतो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद में मृत्युसंभव+ो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंसकतीथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के

¶71

मै मजरू+ासे उस दिन शाम के चो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंके उस दिन शाम के बार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंेंमेंपूछताभीगयावद मंखताभीगया े , उसकीके उस दिन शाम के अनुसार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंइन्जर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंडिर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस् प ताल गाजियाबाद मेंो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंट# मेंचो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटेंडिल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंखी+ैं। मैने उस दिन शाम के डिजससमयमजरू+ा अस्पताल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंमें �ाक्टर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंमुआयनाकर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पत ा ल गाजियाबाद मेंने उस दिन शाम के आयी, उससमयव+ बे उस दिन शाम के +ो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंशन+ींथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के मै ने उस दिन शाम के मजरू+ाके उस दिन शाम के शर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंपर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंको बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंई नीलगू निशान बांयी तरफ कमर पर बीच के व निचले हिस्से पर बीच की जल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद म े ंकाडिनशानन+ींपाया। मैने उस दिन शाम के मजरू+ाने उस दिन शाम के उस समयभीन+ीबतायाथाडिकइसके उस दिन शाम के डिबजल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंकीको बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंई नीलगू निशान बांयी तरफ कमर पर बीच के व निचले हिस्से पर बीच की शो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल ग ाजियाबाद मेंा+ो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद में। मैने उस दिन शाम के और मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंन+ी मै ने उस दिन शाम के इन्जर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंडिर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस् प ताल गाजियाबाद मेंो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंट# मेंइससबंधमेंको बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंई नीलगू निशान बांयी तरफ कमर पर बीच के व निचले हिस्से पर बीच की डिववर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंण अवस्था डिद मेंया। मैने उस दिन शाम के डिजससमयमै ने उस दिन शाम के मजरू+ाकीचो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंका�ाक्ट्र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी मुआयनाडिकयाउससे उस दिन शाम के कर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंब 6 घंटे उस दिन शाम के पूव# मजरू+ाको बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंये उस दिन शाम के चो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंप+ुँ चायीगयीथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के मजरू+ाके उस दिन शाम के मे उस दिन शाम के र मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंे उस दिन शाम के डिवचार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंमेंसभी साधार मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंण अवस्था चो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटेंथी। मैने उस दिन शाम के अगर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंडिकसीव्यडिक्तमेंइतनीस+नशडिक्त+ै डिकमजरू+ा

¶72

¶73

के उस दिन शाम के शर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०ज ी ० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंपर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंजो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंचो बतौर मैडिकल अफसर एम०एस०जी० अस्पताल गाजियाबाद मेंटमै ने उस दिन शाम के पायीव+ डिकसीव्यडिक्तसे उस दिन शाम के बनवायीभीजासकती +ैं। मैने उस दिन शाम के "

¶74

Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that prosecution witnesses are not reliable and they have not narrated the actual incident. The statements of the witnesses are contradictory. He argued that P.W-1 in his statement stated that injured Smt.Surekha Sharma was lying on ground and house was closed whereas P.W.-2 Sukhbir Singh in his statement has stated that he met Chetan Brat and obtained the telephone number of P.W.-1 Brahmanand Sharma from him.

¶75

Per contra, injured P.W.-1 Smt. Surekha Sharma stated that his father came to her house, no one from the side of her in-laws was present at the spot whereas P.W.-4 L.C.Kapoor has stated that he saw the accused were standing on the roof of the house. The statement of P.W.-5 is also contradictory, not supporting the presence of the accused on the spot. The contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses creates doubt.

¶76

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 next argued that as per statement of P.W.-5 Major R.K.Tiwari, accused Chetan Vratt has a stick(lakdi) in his hand and rest of the opposite parties were beating Smt.Surekha Sharma with fists. Dev Brat had a shoe in his hand and Satya Brat had knife in his hand whereas P.W.-2 Sukhbir stated that Smt. Surekha Sharma was beaten by fist and danda by opposite party no.2 and Dev Brat had danda in his hand and the rest of the accused had no danda in their hand. Chetan Brat kicked Smt.Surekha Sharma. Further Sukhbir P.W.-2 clarified that Dev Brat had danda and rest of the accused were empty handed whereas Smt.Surekha Sharma injured, P.W.-3 had stated that husband Dev Brat is an attempt to kill her, stabbed with a knife in the stomach but the blow was inflicted over hand.

¶77

The variation in the statement of the prosecution witnesses creates doubt about their presence on the spot. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 next submitted that learned trial court has rightly acquitted all the accused persons in the present FIR.

¶78

¶79

Counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that from perusal of the FIR as well as statement of the injured, it is alleged that she was given some pills by her husband with tea to kill her. From medical report and statements, this appears false, exaggerated and fabricated to implicate the opposite party no.2. Injured Smt.Surekha Sharma also submitted that she was given electric shock by opposite party no.2 but from the medical report and statement of doctor, no evidence of the same is available. There are various contradictions in the statement of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5. Learned trial court has rightly held that the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not corroborate with each other or with the medical evidence. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove that injury received by injured have been caused with the intention to kill Surekha Sharma.

¶80

The judgement of the trial court analysed in the light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, does not reveal any perversity in the same. There are eye witnesses but their statements are contradictory and do not support the prosecution story and the medical evidence. It is imperative on the prosecution to prove its case. In the present case, motive is a dowry demand, Smt. Surekha Sharma is alleged to have been subject to cruelty to get dowry from her father, but none of the prosecution witnesses have made any assertion in this regard. The motive is, therefore, extremely weak.

¶81

In our opinion, that statements of witnesses being contradictory, their presence on the spot is doubtful. So far statement of P.W.-3 Smt. Surekha Sharma is concerned, she had stated that Dev Brat wanted to stab in her stomach but she somehow saved herself and received the injury on sleeves. She had stated that she was beaten by five accused persons. She had stated that she was given electric shock but she did not raise before P.W.-7 K.K.Karauli. Injured P.W.-3 stated that she was beaten whole night of 19.07.1980 till 8.00 a.m. of 20.07.1980 (date of incident) by the accused persons but she had received only six injuries, all simple in nature. Injury Nos.1 to 5 are caused by blunt objects like lathi, danda. As per statement of

¶82

¶83

P.W.-3 she received head injury and she was bleeding from mouth and hand. Her clothes, saree, blouse and peticoat were blood stained but same were not collected by investigating officer. Doctor has not found any injury over her face. P.W.-1 states that he wrote First Information Report in the room of the SHO, whereas P.W.-6 head constable stated that Brahamand Sharma brought a written report and same was not scribed at police station. Story of prosecution is doubtful and prosecution could not prove its case.

¶84

20.07.1980 was a Sunday but prosecution witness P.W.-2 Sukhbir Singh and P.W.-5 Major R.K.Tiwari were going to attend their offices. P.W.-4 could not state the distance of accused house from his house. P.W.-2 Sukhbir Singh states that Dev Brat had danda in his hand. P.W.-4 L.C.Kapoor has not specify anyone, P.W.-5 Major R.K.Tiwari has stated that Chetan Brat had stick (lakdi) in his hand and other are assigned fists. None of the witnesses have seen a knife in the hand of accused.

¶85

Injured received six injuries, five of which are simple in nature. Injury No.6 is caused by sharp edged weapon but as per doctor opinion, it may be manufactured and it is not on a vital part. Prosecution had failed to prove as who had inflicted this injury as prosecution witnesses at one place states that Dev Brat had no knife, he had only danda in his hand. Prosecution witness P.W.-2 Sukhbir Singh stated that Dev Brat had stick in his hand whereas P.W.-5 Major R.K.Tiwari had stated that Dev Brat had shoes in his hand and Satya Vratt had sharp edged weapon in his hand. Injured Smt. Surekha Sharma had stated that husband Dev Brat had attacked her with a knife. Learned trial court rightly considered all these aspects and came to the conclusion that story are concocted to implicate all the family members, the opposite party no.2.

¶86

The present Government Appeal is pending since last thirty years. It is established law that against acquittal order, Appellate Court should refrain from framing second opinion on same facts of the case.

¶87

¶88

In our considered opinion, learned Government Advocate has failed to point out any error which would warrant interference by this Court and as such the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶89

Accordingly, the present Government Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The order passed by the court below dated 31.03.1984 is hereby affirmed.

¶90

Order dt.27.07.2021/SKD

State of U.P. v. Chetan Brit Sharma and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Chetan Brit Sharma and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Chandra Vs State

Midhai Lal Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Sarvesh and Another

Satveer Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Rasheed Vs State

State of U.P. Vs Surya Prakash and others