Allahabad High Court Slams State for ‘Cursory’ Appeal Against Acquittal, Awards ₹2 Lakhs Compensation for Vexatious Prosecution

Allahabad, India – In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the acquittal of a man in a dowry death case, strongly admonishing the state for filing the appeal in a "cursory fashion" and without due application of mind. The Division Bench, comprising Hon'ble Siddharth, J. and Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J. , not only upheld the trial court's decision but also ordered the state to pay ₹2 lakhs in compensation to the acquitted man for the "vexatious criminal prosecution."

Case Background

The case stemmed from the tragic suicide of Pinky Jaiswal on March 7, 2022, less than a year after her marriage to Dhirendra Kumar. The deceased's brother filed an FIR, leading to charges against the husband under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 304-B (dowry death), 504 (insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, along with the Dowry Prohibition Act.

However, the trial court in Bulandshahr acquitted Dhirendra Kumar on July 4, 2024, citing several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and giving significant weight to a suicide note left by the deceased. The State of U.P. subsequently filed a government appeal challenging this acquittal.

Arguments Before the High Court

The State, represented by learned A.G.A. Smt. Manju Thakur, argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It contended that the prosecution had proven the unnatural death occurred within seven years of marriage amid demands for dowry, and that the trial court had wrongly dismissed the testimonies of the deceased's family members.

In response, counsel for the respondent, Sri Pranvesh and Sri Saurabh Kesarwani, highlighted the cornerstone of the defense: a suicide note recovered from the deceased and proven by the prosecution itself. In the note, Pinky Jaiswal explicitly stated she was taking her life due to "study stress" and that neither her husband, her in-laws, nor her own parents were responsible for her death.

The Decisive Suicide Note

The High Court meticulously examined the suicide note, which it deemed a crucial piece of evidence. The note, written by the deceased, read:

“ I, Pinki Jaiswal... am committing suicide in my full senses due to study stress. I myself take responsibility for this, neither my Husband Dhirendra Kumar Jaiswal nor any member of my in-laws are responsible for my suicide, nor are my mother, father or any family member responsible... I request the Police Sir not to harass my in-laws and my parents after my death. ”

The Court noted that this directly contradicted the allegations of dowry harassment. Furthermore, the prosecution's claims, such as the deceased being two months pregnant, were disproven by the post-mortem report, which found the uterus to be "Non-gravida."

Court’s Scathing Rebuke and Legal Principles

The bench found no perversity in the trial court's judgment. It observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of a dowry death charge, namely, that the deceased was subjected to cruelty "soon before her death" for dowry. In fact, the deceased's brother (the informant) admitted to being with his sister just a day before her death.

The Court then delivered a detailed exposition on the principles governing appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. It reiterated the established legal position that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and an appellate court should interfere only in cases of perverse or demonstrably unsustainable findings.

In a powerful rebuke to the state machinery, Justice Avnish Saxena, writing for the bench, stated:

“ The scope of appeal in the case of acquittal of accused after a full trial cannot be challenged in appeal in a routine manner. The State Government before giving direction to public prosecutor to present an appeal is under a legal obligation to state in clear words its direction that there is substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusion and apparent mistake, which warrants appeal. ”

The Court concluded that the state had failed to apply its judicial mind before filing the appeal, putting an honorably acquitted individual through further jeopardy.

Final Verdict

Finding the state's appeal devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed it. Citing the "vexatious" nature of the prosecution, the bench directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹2 lakhs in compensation to Dhirendra Kumar within 30 days.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to prosecuting agencies to exercise their power to appeal against acquittals sparingly and with scrupulous consideration of the evidence, respecting the "double presumption of innocence" that an acquitted person enjoys.