SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 1294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Prashant Kumar, Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, JJ.
Hub Lal Saroj, S/o Baij Nath Saroj, R/o Village Saraiya - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite parties
Criminal Appeal No. -1675 of 2006
Decided On : 24-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dev Kumar Tripathi, Anupam, Dixit, P.K. Srivastava, Sharavan Kumar Shukla Counsel

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Headnote:

Dowry Demand - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Indian Evidence Act - The court discussed the application of Section 302 IPC, the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the need for direct evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the crime and emphasized that suspicion cannot replace proof.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the death of a woman in her in-laws' house under abnormal circumstances. The prosecution alleged dowry demand and charged the accused under section 302 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that the burden of proof was wrongly shifted to the accused under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge under section 302 IPC against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for direct evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the crime and highlighted that suspicion cannot replace proof. It also discussed the burden of proof under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.

1. Instant appeal has arisen against the judgment and order dated 04.7.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Pratapgarh in S.T. No.500/2001, arising out of case crime no.287/97, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-with default stipulation of two months' imprisonment.

2. According to the prosecution case, a first information report was lodged on 18.9.1997 by one Ram Bahadur Saroj at Police Station Baghrai, stating that his sister Ramjasi was married to the accused Hub Lal about four years back according to Hindu rituals. Dowry was also given as per the financial capacity of the father of the deceased but the in-laws of Ramjasi were demanding Rs.10000/-. Whenever she used to come to her parental house, she informs about the demand being made by her in laws. It was also informed by her that her father-in-law Baijnath, 'jeth' Chhangu and Nanbachcha, 'jethani' and husband are torturing her for demand of dowry. Complainant received an information on 18.9.1997 that his sister Ramjasi has been ablazed by the accused on 17.9.1997. When complainant alongwith fellow villagers reached Nazirpur Saraiyya, he found that the burnt dead body of Ramjasi was lying in the house of Hub Lal. First information report was lodged and the case was registered under section 498 A, 304 B IPC. Inquest proceedings were conducted. Dead body was sealed and sent for postmortem which was conducted on 20.9.1997 at 01:50 PM by Dr. P.K. Singh wherein the cause of death was found as asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Hyoid bone was found fractured. Postmortem superficial to deep burn were also present. After investigation Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet under section 306 IPC against the accused-appellant.

3. Initially, the learned trial court framed a charge on 14.02.2002 under section 306 IPC against the accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. After recording the statement of the witnesses at the time of judgment learned trial court recorded a finding that in view of the statement of PW-4 Ram Bahadur and PW-5 Dr.P.K. Singh charge under section 302 IPC should be framed against the accused. Accordingly, charge under section 302 IPC was framed and charge under section 306 IPC was deleted on 14.12.2005. An opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses was also given to the accused. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case prosecution has produced PW-1 Prahladi (declared hostile), PW-2 Deokali (declared hostile), PW-3 Prabhavati Devi (declared hostile), PW-4 Ram Bahadur complainant and brother of the deceased, PW-5 Dr P.K. Singh who has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased wherein the cause of death was found strangulation. Postmortem burn injuries were also found. PW-6 SI Shyam Bahari Singh Investigating Officer, PW-7 Dy. S.P. Lal Bahadur Investigating Officer.

5. Learned trial court has also summoned Baijnath as CW-1 and Shanti Devi as CW-2. In the statement under section 313 CrPC accused has stated that the deceased has committed suicide as she was under depression due to the death of her children. Accused was not present at the place of incident.

6. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial court has recorded a finding of conviction against the accused-appellant. Learned trial court has based its judgment mainly on Section 106 Indian Evidence Act.

7. Feeling aggrieved, accused-appellant has preferred the appeal.

8. We have heard Shri Shrawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

9. Initially, the first information report was lodged under section 498-A and 304 B IPC but after investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under section 306 IPC. Learned trial court has recorded the entire evidence, statement






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top