Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1026
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANDEEP MEHTA, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Brijesh Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Diary No. 23115 of 2025
Decided On : 18-06-2025
For the Petitioners: Sonia Mathur, Uday Prakash Yadav, Yogendra Singh, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Subhi Bhardwaj, Sneha Singh, Ramjee Pandey
Interference in acquittal appeals is justified only if the trial court's findings are perverse, maintaining that evidentiary support is crucial for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/149, 304B, 498A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Acquittal of accused in the context of unfair trial - The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding lack of evidence to substantiate the charges of dowry-related offenses, and the High Court upheld this decision. The Courts found the delay in filing the FIR significant, indicating an after-thought by the complainant (Paras 2-5).
(B) Standards for interference - The law mandates that interference in acquittal appeals should occur only if the trial court's findings are perverse or not supported by possible evidence (Paras 6-7).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-complainant challenged the acquittal of the spouse and family members of the deceased, who allegedly took her life under suspicious circumstances within two years of marriage, noted by the lack of immediate complaints during inquest proceedings (Paras 4).
Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings of insufficient evidence, leading to acquittal of the respondents, were affirmed (Para 6).
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence and the implications of the FIR filing delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that, without compelling evidence to disrupt the acquittal, no further judicial action is warranted, reinforcing the principle that acquittals should be respected where no manifest injustice exists (Paras 7).
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal background of the case and events (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. hearing and considerations by the court (Para 3) |
| 3. review of lower court decisions and findings (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of the special leave petition (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. This special leave petition has been preferred by the petitioner-complainant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 25th October, 2024 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 319 of 2021 preferred by the petitioner for assailing the judgment dated 14th August, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 2125 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 2251 of 2010 acquitting respondent nos. 2 to 6 from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 3 02/149, 304B, 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner-complainant and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on record.
4. From a perusal of the evidence available on record, it is clear that the deceased, Smt. Suchita Singh, being the sister of the petitioner-complainant was married to respondent no. 2 i.e. Ajit Singh on 12th December, 2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Smt. Suchita ended her life by hanging herself in the matrimonial home on 5th October, 2010. Indisputably, the respondent No. 2 being the husband of the deceased immediately informed the maternal relatives regarding the unfortunate incident. The complainant (PW-1) and his father (PW-2) reached the matrimonial home of the deceased and the inquest proceedings were carried out in their presence. The father of the deceased was serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Police whereas the petitioner-complainant is a highly qualified person. None of the family members raised any objection/suspicion regarding the death of Smt. Suchita at the time of preparation of the inquest proceedings and the dead body of Smt. Suchita was cremated in their presence. The FIR came to be filed after 4 days of the incident, i.e. on 9th October, 2010. The Courts below held that the delay indicated that the story set out in the report was nothing but an after-thought.
5. The trial Court, after thorough appreciation of evidence proceeded to acquit the respondent nos. 2 to 6 of the charges by a detailed judgment dated 14th August, 2014. The High Court in the criminal appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. re-appreciated the entire evidence and upheld the findings of the trial Court and affirmed the respondents’ acquittal by judgment dated 25th October, 2024.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and are of the opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in acquitting the respondents do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity.
7. Law is well settled that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be made only if the view taken by the Court below is perverse or if no two views are possible and the only logical conclusion from the evidence is to record the guilt of the accused. In the present case, we do not find that any view other than that taken by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court acquitting the respondents of the charges is permissible.
8. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner-complainant. The same is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
