Dismissed

Smt. Shobhawati v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2022CRLA/2656/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. regarding dowry-related offences, the High Court discussed the limited scope for interference. The Court held the lower court's acquittal was a probable view based on the record and dismissed the appeal, noting strong reasons are needed to overturn an acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against acquittal is dismissed. No interference with the judgment of acquittal is called for.

Smt. Shobhawati Vs State of U.P. and Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2656 of 2010

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Shobhawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Shiva Nand Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Brijesh Yadav Vijay,M P Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

The case is taken up in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant as well as for the respondent Nos 2 to 8.

¶6

Heard Shri Brisjesh Yadav Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Shri Aniruddha Kumar Singh,learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10-07-2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.-18, Sultanpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 606 of 2004 Shobhawati Vs. State of U.P. and others, under Sections 498A/504/506/494 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District-Sultanpur thereby acquitting the accused respondents from the charges framed against them under the aforesai sections and also the order dated 13.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions/Special Judge Essential Commodities Act , Court No.-9, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No. 407 of 2009, under Sections 498A/504/506/494 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District - Sultanpur, whereby the revisional court affirmed the order dated 10.7.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.-18, Sultanpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 606 of 2004 Shobhawati Vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶8

The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant/appellant instituted a complaint against the accused respondents 2 to 8 to this effect that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with Rag Bahadur (Respondent no. 2) according to Hindu rites and rituals about 4-5 years ago of the alleged incident. Her gauna took place after 3 years. The complainant and respondent no. 2 were living as husband and wife. In the marriage one watch, radio and cycle were given and in gauna ornaments were also given but the accused respondents were not satisfied with the alleged articles and they made additional demand of one motorcycle and Honda. Due to non fulfillment of the same , they caused cruelty to the appellant. The appellant was ousted from her in law's house and respondent no.2 solemnized second marriage. The appellant made efforts for lodging the FIR regarding the alleged incident to the police authorities but in vain. Thereafter she moved an complaint before the court concerned. The court concerned after considering the evidence available on record summoned the accused respondents.

¶9

The court below after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, passed the judgment and orders of acquittal dated 10-07-2009 and 13-07-2010, respectively.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below did not appreciate the evidence on record; prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused on the basis of evidence and the judgment was passed without considering the statement of witnesses and the case set up by the prosecution and the judgment of acquittal was passed on surmises and conjectures.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. submits that the present appeal is of the year, 2010. Moreover, there appears no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court below, therefore, appeal may be dismissed.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the judgment passed by the court below.

¶13

In the present case from the statements given by the witnesses produced by the prosecution, I found that prosecution has failed to establish that the crime in question has been committed by the accused and there was no direct evidence produced by the prosecution regarding involvement of the opposite parties 2 and 8 in the crime.

¶14

Further, this Court observed that an appeal against acquittal stands on a different footing from the appeal against conviction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 has considered this difference and has observed in paragraph nos.20 and 21 as under:

¶15

"20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can raise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held:

¶16

"7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal."

¶17

21. The Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no

¶18

absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative."

¶19

In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, the impugned judgments has to be considered from the point of view whether the view taken by the court below was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits.

¶20

A criminal trial proceeds with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons. With the acquittal of the accused persons this presumption of innocence stands fortified. So very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of acquittal.

¶21

Keeping in view the aforesaid weakness of the prosecution case, as noted by the court below, I am of the view that the view taken by the court below was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the court below cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable and not based on material on record or is based on erroneous views and is against the settled position of law. So, this Court is satisfied that there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for.

¶22

Accordingly, the present appeal against acquittal is dismissed.

¶23

No order as to costs.

¶24

Copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for its compliance.

¶25

Order Date :- 23.8.2022 GSY

¶26

Digitally signed by GULAB Date: 2022.09.13 19:58:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Shobhawati v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shobhawati v. State of U.P. and 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

Raju Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Home, Lko.

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Central Bureau of Investigation through Inspector Vs Brijendra Pal Singh and 3 Ors.

Union of India Thru. the S.P. CBI Spl.Police Establishment Vs Ram Nath Singh and 02 Ors.

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.