Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 194
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. and Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Sajid – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1686 of 2019 at Allahabad
Petitioner: Satish Kumar Tyagi , Nanhe Lal Tripathi , Perdeep Kumar Vishnoi , Ramesh Kumar Pandey , Syed Ahmed Faizan and Zaheer Asghar
Respondent: G.A. , Mohd. Afzal and Satish Kumar Mishra
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court cannot convict the accused based on unreliable and inconsistent evidence.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Sections 498A, 307/34, 323/34 IPC, Section 4 D.P. Act - Prosecution's Shifting Stand and Lack of Reliable Evidence
Fact of the Case:
The informant's daughter Nazrana got married to the accused Sajid. The informant alleged that the accused persons, including Sajid, Nazakat, Jaitoon, and Zakir, constantly demanded additional dowry and subjected Nazrana to cruelty. On 29.07.2012, the accused persons allegedly poured kerosene oil on Nazrana and set her ablaze. Nazrana sustained 40% burn injuries and was treated at a hospital.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies and shifting stands. The testimony of the informant and the injured witness, Nazrana, was unreliable and lacked credibility. The court also noted that the alleged purchase of plots by the informant to meet the dowry demands was an afterthought and not supported by evidence. The court concluded that the conviction and sentence of the accused Sajid was erroneous and lopsided.
Issues: Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's case was not supported by reliable and credible evidence. The shifting stands and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, along with the lack of corroborative evidence, raised serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's case. The court also noted that the conduct of the accused Zakir in taking the injured Nazrana to the hospital was more consistent with his innocence than his guilt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of the accused Sajid and quashed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The court also rejected the appeal filed by the informant Shahjad Ali against the acquittal of the other accused persons.
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 2 of 21 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.
3 of 21 (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 maar- peet 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. Infor
