Back
2024 Supreme(All) 834
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAHUL CHATURVEDI, MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, JJ.
Sajid - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1686 of 2019 with Criminal MISC. Application U/S 372 CR.P.C (Leave To Appeal) No. 106 of 2019
Decided On : 21-05-2024
For the Parties : Satish Kumar Tyagi, Nanhe Lal Tripathi, Perdeep Kumar Vishnoi, Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Syed Ahmed Faizan, Zaheer Asghar, G.A., Mohd. Afzal, Satish Kumar Mishra.
IMPORTANT POINT
In dowry harassment and attempted murder cases, the prosecution must provide credible evidence and establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the financial circumstances of the parties involved.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - DOWRY HARASSMENT AND ATTEMPTED MURDER - Sections 498A, 307/34, 323 IPC; Sections 3/4 D.P. Act - The court examined the applicability of Sections 498A and 307 IPC concerning dowry harassment and attempted murder. It highlighted the necessity of credible evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution. The court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the alleged dowry demands and the circumstances of the incident. The court emphasized the importance of financial compatibility in dowry demands and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The informant Shahjad lodged an FIR against his son-in-law Sajid and others, alleging dowry harassment and attempted murder of his daughter Nazrana. The FIR claimed that the accused demanded additional dowry and ultimately set Nazrana ablaze. The prosecution presented several witnesses, but inconsistencies in their testimonies raised doubts about the credibility of the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies and lacked credible evidence. The testimonies of the informant and the injured party were not corroborated by any reliable evidence, and the court noted that the alleged dowry demands were implausible given the financial circumstances of the informant. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the charges of dowry harassment and attempted murder against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubt must benefit the accused. It highlighted the need for credible evidence and the importance of financial compatibility in dowry-related allegations.
Final Decision: The appeal by Sajid was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were quashed. The court upheld the acquittal of the other accused, finding no grounds for interference with the trial court's decision.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Syed Ahmad Faizan, Zaheer Asghar, Ms. Fatma Anjum and Sri Munawar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the first informant assisted by Sri Kushagra Srivastava, Sri Shahrukh, Advocates, Sri Ghanshyam Kumar and Satyendra Tiwari, learned AGA-I for the State.
2. Argument heard at length to the satisfaction of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The aforesaid criminal appeals are ---(i) Criminal Appeal No. 1686 of 2019 (Sajid Vs. State of U.P., is only on behalf of the accused Sajid, a convicted accused for the offence under Section 498A, 307/34, 323/34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act and therefore the present appeal is under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. assailing the legality and validity of the judgement and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC, Hapur, whereby accused Sajid was sentenced under Section 498A, three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3000/-along with default clause, under Section 307/34 IPC for ten years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-along with default clause, and Section 4 of the D.P.Act, two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-along with default clause AND (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2019 on behalf of Shahjad Ali, the informant, who is assailing the aforesaid judgement and order dated 12.02.2019 whereby the learned trial judge has recorded the acquittal of the remaining co-accused persons, namely, Zakir, Smt. Jaitoon and Nazakat under Sections 498A, 307/34, 323/34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act to reverse the finding and accord suitable sentence to them.
4. Since subject matter of both the appeals, is the judgement and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC, Hapur while deciding the S.T. No. 1333 of 2013 and the same set of evidence has to be examined & appreciated in both the appeals, therefore for the sake of brevity and convenience, both these appeals are being decided by a common judgement.
5. Needless to mention here, that same set of counsel are assisting the Court in deciding the aforesaid appeals and thus we have heard the learned counsel of both the sides representing their respective parties of the appeals to their satisfaction.
6. The paper book of the appeal is ready and the counsel for both the sides have advanced their submissions and the judgement was reserved.
7. Before appreciating the merit of the case, it is imperative to give a bare skeleton facts of the case to appreciate the controversy involved, which are :-
(i) For the incident of 29.07.2012, the informant Shahjad son of Mushtaq lodged an FIR on 30.07.2012 at 12.15 p.m., which was registered as Case Crime No. 234 of 2012 under Section 498A, 307, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P.Act against (a) Sajid(husband) son of Nazakat Ali, (b) Nazakat Ali (father-in-law), (c) Smt. Jaitoon(mother-in-law) w/o Nazakat Ali and (d) Zakir Ali(Dewar) son of Nazakat Ali.
(ii) As per the allegation made in the FIR, informant’s daughter Nazrana got married about 15 months back with Sajid of Village Vait as per the Muslim Rites and rituals.
(iii) In this marriage the informant has spent Rs. 51,000/-in cash, a motorcycle, ornaments of gold and silver and other household goods of wood and iron.
(iv) Dissatisfied by the dowry given to her daughter, all the family members including Sajid, Nazakat Ali, Jaitoon and Zakir Ali used to target her daughter for bringing scanty dowry and she was constantly subject of cruelty and maltreatment and sometimes they used to manhandle her. This has caused lot of frustration and agony to her daughter. There was a constant demand of a four wheeler and Rs. 2,00,000/-by way of additional dowry. On 29.07.2012, they have committed a maarpeet with her. After getting the information, the informant, Pradhan Nawab and Intezaam went to village Vait, where they were informed that the in-laws have committed maar-peet with her and she has sustained injury over her hand. Informant an
