Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

30.04.2024

1. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate , appearing for the petitioner/State on IA No. 01/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the petition.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State and considering the reasons assigned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly IA No. 01/2023 is allowed and the delay of 65 days in filing the petition is condoned. Also heard application for grant of leave to appeal.

3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.11.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial Case No. 100/200 whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 304-B read with 34 and in alternate Section 302 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.04.2020 the informant Manoj Kumar Gupta gave merg intimation to the Police Station- Sanawal stating that the father-in-law of the deceased Arti Gupta namely Shri Rajnarayan Gupta came his house and narrated the incident that his daughter-in-law/ deceased Arti Gupta not opened the door, upon which he forcibly opened the door and saw that the deceased was committed suicide by hanging. Marriage of the deceased Arti Gupta was solemnized with non-applicant No. 2/Ravindra Kumar Gupta on 06.03.2018. After the marriage of the deceased, non-applicants tortured her, they used to harass the deceased that her parents has not given sufficient amount of dowry, food-items to the non-applicants. On account of that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, physically and mentally tortured by the non-applicants. On the basis of said complaint , FIR was registered against the non-applicants for offence punishable under Section 304-B, 34 and in alternate Section 302 of IPC.

(ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the non-applicants/accused were put to face charges before the learned trial Court. The non- applicants/accused adjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as may as 12 witnesses in its favour.

(iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court, acquitted the non- applicants/accused of the aforesaid offence under Section 304-B and in alternate Section 302 of IPC vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 hence, present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal.

5. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate submits that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the non- applicants from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of complaint without there being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the prosecution. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-01 (Krishna Kumar), PW-02 ( Rajkumari), PW-03 (Rajdev), PW-04 (Karmdev Prasad) & PW-05 (Santosh Kumar). The statement of these witnesses are specifically regarding the cruelty and harassment meted out towards the deceased by the non-applicants. The trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect that deceased within the two years of the marriage other than normal circumstances on account of demand of dowry which is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 304-B of IPC. But learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the same and passed an order which is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court ought to have held that the deceased was subjected continuously with cruelty and harassment which left her with no other option but to commit suicide in her matrimonial house, which itself is a punishable act. So, impugned judgment of acquittal is liabl