Trial courts must not mechanically add charges under Section 302 IPC without sufficient evidence; proper evaluation of evidence is essential to uphold justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

[1]. Heard learned counsels named above appearing for respective appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh Perused the record.

[2]. Since all the appeals suffer from same legal vice and flaw, therefore, all the appeals after being clubbed together and for the sake of brevity and convenience, are being decided by a common judgment.

[3]. The moot legal questions to be adjudicated, in these appeals are; (i) as to whether the trial courts are justified in framing the charge u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with alternative charge u/s 302 I.P.C. simplicitor or 302/34 I.P.C.;

(ii) as to whether the trial courts are justified while exonerating the accused-appellants from the primary charges of Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but convicting them u/s 302/34 I.P.C. taking recourse of Section 106 of the Evidence Act?

As above is a pure legal issue, which deserves strict judicial scrutiny by this Court about the alleged addition of Section 302 I.P.C., in addition to pre-existing sections about dowry death and dowry related inhuman treatment. This exercise is being carried out by the learned Trial Judges as a mater of routine and in a most mechanical fashion, making the entire episode more grim and serious, without having any supporting documents or allegations. Adjudicating of instant legal proposition would have far-reaching implications upon all the pending trials before concerned Sessions Courts of the State, as we are now inclined to decide the aforesaid moot point at this threshold stage.

At this juncture, we may like to clarify that while deciding this bunch of Appeals, we are focussing our attention to above legal theorem only without touching the factual merit of the case. It is open for the trial court to decide entire spectrum of the cases after having proper evaluation of the evidence on its own.

[4]. Before entering into the legal arena, we find it necessary to give a bare skeleton facts of each case for better appreciation of every appeal at hand and the controversy involved in it, viz :

FACTUAL MATRIX OF RESPECTIVE APPEALS :

[5]. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1667 of 2021 (Rammilan Bunkar vs. State of U.P.)

(i) Appellant Rammilan Bunkar is facing incarceration since 09.02.2021 pursuant to judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Lalitpur while deciding S.T. No.37 of 2017 (State vs. Rammilan Bunkar and 2 others), arising out of Case Crime No.113 of 2016, Police Station-Narahat, District Lalitpur. The appellant Rammilan Bunkar and 2 others were put to trial u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act with alternative charge u/s 302/34 I.P.C., but the learned Trial Judge have exonerated the accused-appellant from the charge u/s 304B I.P.C., but have convicted u/s 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-; u/s 498A I.P.C. for two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-and u/s 4 of D.P. Act for one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000/-with default clause. In addition to this, remaining co-accused persons Lal Singh and Har Govind were also exonerated and acquitted from the charges u/s 498A, 304B, 302 I.P.C. & Section 4 D.P. Act.

(ii). As per prosecution case the informant Aunda s/o Pathola has given a written tehrir on 18.3.2016 that her daughter Anita @ Poonam (aged about 22 years) got married with Rammilan Bunkar about three years back. The marriage was solemnized as per their standards, but her in-laws were dissatisfied with the dowry given and they were demanding a motorcycle and sofa-set by way of additional dowry and on this score she was subjected to constant torture and ill-treatment. On 17.3.2016 around 03.00 in the day, they have taken away the deceased and Rammilan Bunkar, Lal Singh and Har Govind poured kerosene oil upon her and set her ablaze. On this, F.I.R. was registered u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. & 3/4 o