Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16926
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Mithai Lal – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Verma – Respondent
CRL.A. 1253/2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Sureshan
For the Respondents: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Randeep Kr, Rishabh, Lalit Luthra, Rajender Pal
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere if the trial court's conclusion is a possible view of the evidence. Convictions under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC require specific proof of cruelty linked to dowry, which cannot be established through vague or contradictory testimonies.
Headnote:(A) Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only if the trial court's view is not a possible view based on the evidence on record; if the view taken is plausible, it cannot be overturned even if another view is possible. (Para 12, 32)
(B) Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Essential Ingredients - To establish dowry death, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demands soon before her death. (Para 26)
(C) Cruelty and Harassment - Section 498-A IPC - Evidence Appreciation - Vague allegations of dowry demands, coupled with contradictory witness statements and the unnatural conduct of parents (such as failure to lodge complaints or hold a panchayat), are insufficient to prove cruelty or harassment. (Para 29, 31)
Issues: Whether the trial court's judgment acquitting the accused was perverse or based on a plausible appreciation of evidence, warranting interference by the appellate court.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the father of the deceased namely, Mithai Lal challenging the judgment dated 28th July, 2012 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-03, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby all the four respondents-accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A /304-B/34 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 09th June, 2009 at 06:30 p.m., DD No. 32A was received at P.S. R.K. Puram regarding death by hanging of a woman at S-146, 184 Sector-1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Basis this information, SI R.K. Meena proceeded to the spot and after necessary formalities, sent the body of the deceased to the mortuary.
4. On 10th June, 2009, the Executive Magistrate reached Safdarjung Hospital Mortuary where he recorded the statement of Mithai Lal, father of the deceased Ms. Sunita. On the basis of this statement, the Executive Magistrate directed the SHO to register the FIR and investigate the matter. This led to the registration of FIR No. 241/2009 under Sections 304-B /498-A/34 IPC at P.S. R.K. Puram on 10.06.2009.
5. Two persons namely, Anil Kumar Verma, husband of the deceased, his father, Ram Niwas, were arrested. Subsequently, another accused Sunil Kumar, brother of Anil Kumar Verma, was also arrested on 10.07.2009. The mother-in-law of the deceased, Leelawati, was declared as a proclaimed offender (PO).
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the three arrested accused and the charges were framed against them under Sections 498-A /304-B/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Subsequently, Leelawati was arrested on 08th March, 2010 and a supplementary charge sheet was filed against her and the charges were framed under Sections 498-A /304-B/34 IPC against her as well to which she also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death of deceased Sunita was opined to be on account of Asphyxia due to ligature hanging.
9. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses, of which following four were the public witnesses:
(i) PW-1 Mithai Lal (father of deceased);
(ii) PW-3 Ganga Prasad (uncle of deceased);
(iii) PW-4 Rupmati (mother of deceased); and
(iv) PW-5 Asha (aunt of deceased).
10. On the basis of the evidence that had come on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charges under section 498-A/304-B IPC.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, the learned APP for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, as well as, the records of the case.
12. Before proceeding further, we may note that the present is an appeal against acquittal. The principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 , CrPC have been succinctly summarized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HD Sundara and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka , (2023) 9 SCC 581, in the following terms:
“8…..
8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.
(emphasi
