Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 December, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:192776-DB Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 593 of 2024 Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwini Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Alok Kumar Gupta, respondent no.2, in person and Sri Gyan Narayan Kanaujia, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
2. The above noted Criminal Appeal has been filed under section 372 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.07.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge IV, Jaunpur, in Sessions Trial No. 327 of 2012 (State Vs. Sumit Kumar Gupta) (Deceased and others) under sections 498-A, 304-B and 3/4 of D.P. Act and alternate section 302/34 of I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case in short is that sister of the informant was married to Sumit Kumar Gupta on 07.06.2021. Rupees 1,50,000/- in cash and other goods were given in dowry to the respondents. The brother of Sumit Kumar Gupta, respondent no.2, Alok Kumar Gupta, was demanding further dowry and was refusing to get the bidai of his sister done. Thereafter, on assurance of the informant, they took his sister along to her matrimonial home. There she was harassed for dowry and on 14.06.2020 at about 10:00 p.m. information was given by the relative of the respondent, Sanjay Kumar, that sister of the informant is quite ill. Thereafter, she died in the district hospital.
4. The cause of death of the deceased was not ascertained and her viscera was preserved. In the viscera report of the deceased aluminum phosphide was found.
5. The prosecution produced P.W.-1, Rajesh Kumar Gupta; P.W.-2, Smt. Sudha Gupta; P.W.-3, Smt. Kaushalya Gupta; P.W.-4, Sanjay Kumar Gupta; P.W.-5, Constable, Ram Awadh Seth; P.W.-6, Udai Bhan Singh, Doctor; P.W.-7, Maya Ram Veram, Circle Officer; P.W.-8, Mahadev Singh, retired Tehsildar and P.W.-9, Constable clerk, Rajmangal Singh.
6. Statements of accused under sections 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and six witnesses were produced on behalf of defence side.
7. The trial court after considering the evidence on record and found that the viscera report of the deceased was not produced in original and only carbon copy of the same was produced before trial court.
8. The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment acquitting an accused on the principle that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by such a judgment. The above principle has been consistently followed by the Constitutional Court while deciding appeals against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution or appeals filed under Section 378 and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. in State of M.P. Vs. Sharad Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by re-appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below:
"Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity.
11. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under:
"25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."
13. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
14. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
15. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we will examine the trial court's findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order.
16. The trial court has found that there was no injury on the body of the deceased and no evidence whatsoever was not brought on record to prove that soon before the her death, the deceased was subjected to any harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. It is also on record that the husband of the deceased, Sumit Kumar Gupta, suffered from cancer and defence had taken the plea that after coming to know about her husband suffering from cancer, the deceased was quite depressed and she consumed aluminum phosphide and committed suicide. Her husband later died too because of cancer.
17. It has further found that when the witnesses of the prosecution side reached the matrimonial home of the deceased, they did not made any inquiry from the neighbours about the behaviour of the respondents.
18. The trial court concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the respondents beyond doubt, hence acquitted them.
19. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to demonstrate any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the above noted criminal appeal.
20. Appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.12.2024 Abhishek (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Siddharth,J.)