Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Of J&K; vs Ravi Kant And Others on 14 December, 2017
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Cr. Acquittal Appeal No.23/2008 Date of Judgment : 14 -12-2017
__________________________________________________________
State of J&K Vs Ravi Kant and others
Coram:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.
Appearing counsel:
For appellant (s) : Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Manav Samotra, Advocate.
i/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Press/Media?
ii/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Digest/Journal?
________________________________________________________________
1. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the trial court)dated 30.11.2007 in File No.43/Sessions titled State V. Ravi Kant and ors., is the subject matter of challenge in this acquittal appeal. It may be noted that vide order impugned, the respondents were acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 498-A/34 RPC. However, the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 29.08.2012, granted leave to file an appeal only in respect of the charges under section 498-A RPC. This is how, this criminal acquittal appeal has come up for consideration before the Single Bench.
Cr Acq. Appeal No. 23/2008 Page 1 of 72. Briefly stated, the prosecution case before the trial court was that on 18.10.2003, a missing report was lodged in Police Station, Domana with regard to one Meena Kumari who was reported to be missing from her matrimonial home at Chandan Kikar, Muthi Camp. This was later on followed by registration of formal FIR on 19.10.2003 under sections 498- A/34 RPC, pursuant to written complaint made by Ramesh Chander, father of missing lady i.e, Meena Kumari. On 26.10.2003, the dead body of Meena Kumari was fished out from river Chenab at Thangri, Paragwal. During the course of investigation, PW-3 Neelam Kumari revealed to the police that the deceased Meena Kumari had been strangulated by the respondent Ravi Kant in his house on 16.10.2003. It is on the basis of statement of this witness coupled with Post Mortem report, disclosure statement of the accused and other material collected during investigation, the police ultimately produced the challan against the respondent Ravi Kant under sections 302,201,498-A RPC. Rest of the respondents were however, charged for commission of offence under section 498-A/34 RPC. The trial court framed the charges against the respondent Ravi Kant for commission of offence under sections 302/201/498-A RPC and against rest of the respondents under section 498-A RPC on 05.08.2004. since all the respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried, therefore, the prosecution was directed to lead its evidence.
3. With a view to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Satish Kumar, PW-2 Ramesh Kumar, PW-3 Neelam Kumari, PW-4 Parveen Kumar, PW-5 Satya Devi, PW-6 Madhu Kumari, PW-7 Dr. P.Angmo, PW-8 Dr. Tariq Azad, PW-9 Dr. C.S. Gupta, PW-10 Hoshyar Singh, PW- 11 Subash Chander, PW-12 Sham Lal, PW-13 Babu Ram, PW-14 Amar Nath Badyal, PW-15 Ashutosh, PW-16 Tirth Ram, PW-17 Nissar Hussain, PW-18 Janak Raj, PW-19 Mulkh Raj, PW-20 Om Prakash, PW-
Cr Acq. Appeal No. 23/2008 Page 2 of 721 Jugal Kishore, PW-22 Lal Mohammad, PW-23 Zakir Hussain and PW- 24 H.C.Bhagat.
4. On the closure of evidence of the prosecution, the statements of respondents under section 342 Cr.P.C were recorded and the incriminating circumstances that had emerged in the prosecution evidence were put to them. They denied all the allegations but chose not to lead any evidence in defence.
5. The learned trial Court after hearing both the sides and meticulously examining the statement of witnesses of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the respondents beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and, therefore, recorded the order of acquittal in favour of all the respondents.
6. The State is in appeal against the aforesaid order. As stated above, the State has restricted its appeal only with regard to the acquittal of respondents for commission of offence punishable under section 498- A/34 RPC and is otherwise satisfied so far as the acquittal of respondent Ravi Kant for offence punishable under sections 302/201 RPC, is concerned.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the judgment impugned as also the statement of material witnesses recorded during the trial.
8. PW-1 Satish Kumar,who is brother of the deceased, in his deposition has stated that the respondents used to harass the deceased for many reasons; he sent his sister to her parental house for completion of B.A.-Part-II; there was also a demand for the replacement of chain which was met by the parents of the deceased; he was also informed by the deceased that the respondent Ravi Kant had grudge that the T.V.set given by the family of the deceased was old one and that the aforesaid accusation of the respondent was wrong; the witness further stated that the T.V.set was new Cr Acq. Appeal No. 23/2008 Page 3 of 7 and the same was purchased at the time of marriage and he had the receipt thereof also, which he can produce. He has also stated that it was the deceased who had informed him that he was being harassed for dowry by the respondents and that the respondent Ravi Kant also used to beat her. Similarly PW-2 Ramesh Kumar in his deposition has stated that the victim had good relation with the respondent Ravi Kant for about 8 years of the marriage but thereafter he started taunting her. The deceased was made to complete B.A. Part-II examination by arranging tuition after the marriage. He has also stated that respondents used to say that the chain given in the marriage was small one and was required to be enlarged. He, however, stated that the chain was returned to respondent Ravi Kant after doing the needful. He has also deposed that it is the deceased who was telling her mother that her condition was pitiable and the respondents would not spare her life. PW-3 Neelam Kumari, who had revealed to the police about the strangulation of the deceased by respondent Ravi Kant, however, turned hostile and was declared as such by the prosecution. She was subjected to cross examination but nothing incriminating could be elicited from her statement by the prosecution. PW-4 Parveen Kumar is only hearsay witness and has deposed that he had come to know that the deceased had been killed and thrown in the river by the respondent Ravi Kant. The aforesaid witness identified the dupatta which was found near the stone in village Rakh and which ultimately led to the discovery of dead body from the river Chenab. PW- 5 Satya Devi is the mother of the deceased and has deposed on the same lines as PW-2 Ramesh Kumar and PW-1 Satish Kumar have deposed. She has also reiterated that there was a demand from the respondents for a bigger chain which had been met by the witness. She, however, stated that at the time of marriage, there was no demand from the side of the respondents for dowry and the same was given by the family of deceased on their own will. She has further stated Cr Acq. Appeal No. 23/2008 Page 4 of 7 that the deceased demanded a washing machine but could not say whether it was demanded by the respondents or not. She also stated that the deceased never made any complaint about her matrimonial home nor did she say anything against the respondent Ashok Kumar. PW-6 Madhu Kumari is the sister of the deceased. In her deposition, she has stated that the respondents were not treating the deceased well after the marriage and that she was deposing so on the ground that once the respondent Ravi Kant, Ashok Kumar and Nisha along with the deceased had come to her house but left without taking meals and on this, the deceased had told that the respondents would not spare her. But it has also come in the evidence that the respondents had taken tea but had left without meals. There are statements of Doctors i.e., PWs 7,8 and 9 which may not be relevant as the State is not in appeal against the respondent Ravi Kant for offence under Section 302/201 RPC.
9. On the appreciation of statements of aforesaid witnesses, the learned trial court has noticed that the charges under section 498-A/34 RPC had not been made out against any of the respondents and thus ordered the acquittal of all the respondents. As rightly appreciated by the learned trial court that the demand, if any, by the respondents for exchange of chain to be replaced by the bigger one had been met by the family of the deceased and therefore, the matter had ended. The allegation of the prosecution that respondent Ravi Kant had grudge against the deceased on the count that she had brought the T.V.in the dowry which was old one, also does not inspire any confidence in as much as PW Satish Kumar, brother of the deceased has himself stated that the T.V. Set was new and had been purchased at the time of marriage . PW Satya Devi has however, deposed that the deceased had demanded washing machine and could not say as to whether this demand had come from the respondents. It is in the statements of almost all the prosecution witnesses related to the deceased Cr Acq. Appeal No. 23/2008 Page 5 of 7 that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage and whatever items were given in the dowry by the family, were of their own. The statement of PW Satya Devi, the mother of the deceased that the deceased never made any complaint about her matrimonial affairs, is pertinent to be taken note of. It is on the conspectus of the aforesaid depositions made by the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court concluded that the allegations of demand of dowry and resultant harassment meted out to the deceased have not been proved by leading any cogent evidence by the prosecution and in any case, are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
10. To bring home the charge under section 498-A(b), the prosecution is required to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a woman was subjected to harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Best evidence in such case i.e. the woman concerned, who is unfortunately not available in the instant case and the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses referred to above, do not inspire any confidence. In any case, I do not find it a fit case where the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the guilt of respondents beyond reasonable doubt. That apart, scope of interference of the appellate court against the acquittal is circumscribed by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court . Paragraph No. 42 of the Supreme Court Judgment in Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka ( 2007 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases 415 may be reproduced hereinbelow with advantage :
"From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-
appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
Cr Acq. Appeal No. 23/2008 Page 6 of 7(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions or facts and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
11. In view of the aforesaid analysis and keeping in view the scope of interference in an acquittal appeal, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Sanjeev Kumar ) Judge Jammu:
14 -12-2017.
RSB,Secy Cr Acq. Appeal No. 23/2008 Page 7 of 7 Cr Acq. Appeal No. 23/2008 Page 8 of 7