Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, AJAI TYAGI, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Navratan Lal And Others - Respondents
Government Appeal No. 82 of 1987
Decided On : 03-12-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.G.A.
For the Respondent: Kameshwer Singh.

Point of law: In any event High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, High Court should have borne in mind well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by Court.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 342, 323, 506, 498-A, 307, 376/511, 306 & 406 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 378 (3), 161 and 164 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section3/4 – Demand of Additional Dowry - Criminal Intimidation – Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Acquittal - Complainant/victim with the averments that she was married with Kallu Gupta S/o Navratan Lal before three years ago and the accused persons were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and they did not want to keep her in their house. After marriage, she lived in her parental house for near about two years and thereafter under pressure of relatives, she was taken to matrimonial home by her husband, but all the accused persons used to torture her for want of additional dowry - At about 6 o'clock in the morning, they all conspired to kill her by pouring kerosene-oil on her and started beating her. Anyhow, she ran away from there and went to the house of her cousin (brother).
Finding of the court :
Victim (PW1) has nowhere mentioned demand of additional dowry in the form of the gold and her torture in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. There is no evidence of fact that when she ran out of her home, anybody saw her - There is no evidence of this fact also on the record that after coming out of the house of her in-laws, the victim had raised any alarm or any hue and cry outside house, which seems unnatural. Hence, keeping in view the evidence put forward by PW1 and PW2 as also the conduct of the victim, learned trial-court has rightly concluded that charges levelled against the respondents are not proved – Court opinion that no two views are possible and we cannot take different view from that taken by the learned trial-court. We also do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, therefore, we have no other option, but to concur with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge.
Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal under Section 378 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.9.1986, passed by learned Special & Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Sessions Trial No.522 of 1985 (State vs. Navratan Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.1229 of 1985 under Sections 147, 342, 323, 506, 498-A, 307, 376/511, 306 & 406 Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') along with Section3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Banda, whereby the learned trial-court acquitted all the accused-respondents of all charges.

2. The brief facts of this case are that a First Information Report was lodged at Kotwali, District-Banda by complainant/victim with the averments that she was married with Kallu Gupta S/o Navratan Lal before three years ago and the accused persons were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and they did not want to keep her in their house. After marriage, she lived in her parental house for near about two years and thereafter under pressure of relatives, she was taken to matrimonial home by her husband, but all the accused persons used to torture her for want of additional dowry. On 29.8.1985 at about 6 o'clock in the morning, they all conspired to kill her by pouring kerosene-oil on her and started beating her. Anyhow, she ran away from there and went to the house of her cousin (brother).

3. On the basis of aforesaid report, a Case Crime bearing No.1229 of 1985 was registered at Kotwali, Banda, against all the accused-respondents for aforementioned offences.

4. Investigation of the case was taken up by Investigating Officer, who visited the spot and prepared the site-plan. Medical examination of victim was conducted and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by competent Magistrate. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. The case being exclusively triable by court of session was committed for trial to the court of session by competent Magistrate.

5. Learned trial-court framed charges against accused persons under Section 147, 342 read with Section 149, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 498-A read with Section 149 IPC. Additional charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC was framed against Navratan Lal. Accused persons denied charges and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution produced following witnesses, namely:

1.	Victim	PW1
2.	Laxman Prasad	PW2
3.	Dr. Ashok Upadhyay	PW3
4.	Hawaldar Singh	PW4

7. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading evidence:

1.	Written Report	Ex.ka1
2.	F.I.R.	Ex.ka3
3.	Injury Report	Ex.ka2
4.	Site-plan	Ex.ka5

8. After completing prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. One witness, namely, Prem Bihari (DW1) was examined by accused persons in defence.

9. We have heard Shri N.K. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-appellant and perused the record.

10. Before we embark on testimony and the judgment of the Court below, the contours for interfering in Criminal Appeals where accused has been held to be non guilty would require to be discussed.

11. The principles, which would govern and regulate the hearing of an appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal, passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:

“54. In any event the High Court ente