# Ajay Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 126
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7220 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-singh-chauhan-v-state-of-u-p-47503
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections
498-A
&
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections - 2, 3 &
4, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
-
Section 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section - 113 B - Appeal against conviction -
Examination of accused - Demand of dowry -
Daughter of informant was married to accusedappellant - After marriage accused-appellant
and his other family members started harassing
victim in demand of dowry - inability of paying
dowry - She was continuously harassed and
humiliated - Victim used to inform the entire
story to her parents on telephone - It was also
informed by her that accused-appellant and his
family members took out ornaments from her
almirah.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections
498-A
&
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 2, 3 & 4 -
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
- 113 B - Appeal against conviction -
Examination of accused - Demand of dowry -
witnesses withstood lengthy cross-examination
but noting adverse could be recorded - so as to
disbelieve their testimonial statements.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections
498-A
&
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections -2, 3 & 4,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
- 113 B - Appeal against conviction -
Examination of accused - Demand of dowry -
proper appreciation of evidence - once all the
essential ingredients are established by the
prosecution - presumption under section 313-B
of Evidence Act, mandatorily operates against
the accused.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections
498-A,
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 2, 3 & 4,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
- 113 B - Appeal against conviction - question
of appropriate sentence is depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case, nature of
offence and manner - punishment should be
proportionate to gravity of offence - Trail court
2 All. Ajay Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.
127
awarded punishment fit and proper.(Para - 12,
13, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

41. For the aforementioned reasons,
the appeal is allowed and the judgment
and order dated 04.09.2010 passed by the
learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5,
Bulandshahr
in
Special
Trial
No.
683/2007, under Section 302/34 IPC,
State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ Guddu and
others, Police Station Gulawadi, District
Bulandshahr
for
convicting
and
sentencing the appellants to undergo life
imprisonment under Section 302/34 of
IPC, is hereby set-aside.

42. The appellants Afzal @ Guddu
and Iqbal are acquitted for the charges
under Section 302/34 IPC. They shall be
set at liberty forthwith, if not required in
any other case.

43. Office is directed to send copy
of this judgment alongwith original
record to the Court concerned for
necessary action and compliance in
accordance with law.
----------
(2022)02ILR A126
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7220 of 2019

Ajay Singh Chauhan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ram Vishal Mishra, Sri Bala Nath
Mishra, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri Purushottam Mani Tripathi
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections
498-A
&
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections - 2, 3 &
4, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
-
Section 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section - 113 B - Appeal against conviction -
Examination of accused - Demand of dowry -
Daughter of informant was married to accusedappellant - After marriage accused-appellant
and his other family members started harassing
victim in demand of dowry - inability of paying
dowry - She was continuously harassed and
humiliated - Victim used to inform the entire
story to her parents on telephone - It was also
informed by her that accused-appellant and his
family members took out ornaments from her
almirah.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections
498-A
&
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 2, 3 & 4 -
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
- 113 B - Appeal against conviction -
Examination of accused - Demand of dowry -
witnesses withstood lengthy cross-examination
but noting adverse could be recorded - so as to
disbelieve their testimonial statements.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections
498-A
&
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections -2, 3 & 4,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
- 113 B - Appeal against conviction -
Examination of accused - Demand of dowry -
proper appreciation of evidence - once all the
essential ingredients are established by the
prosecution - presumption under section 313-B
of Evidence Act, mandatorily operates against
the accused.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections
498-A,
304-B
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 2, 3 & 4,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
- 113 B - Appeal against conviction - question
of appropriate sentence is depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case, nature of
offence and manner - punishment should be
proportionate to gravity of offence - Trail court
2 All. Ajay Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.
127
awarded punishment fit and proper.(Para - 12,
13, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Satbir Singh & anr. Vs St. of Har. (Criminal
Appeal
No.
1735-1736/2010,
decided
on
28.05.2021)

2. Jatinder Kumar Vs St. of Har. (Criminal
Appeal No. 1850/ 2020, decided on 17.12.2019)

3. Sampath Kumar Vs Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri (2012 vol. 4 SCC page 124)

4. Smt. Shamim Vs State of (NCT of Delhi)
(Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018, decided on
19.09.2018)

5. Rajinder Singh Vs St.of Punj. (2015 vol. 6
SCC page 477)

6. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh & ors. (2014
vol. 7 SCC page 323)

7. Sham Sunder Vs Puran (1990 Vol. 4 SCC 731)

8. MP Vs Saleem (2005 Vol. 5 SCC page 554)

9. Rajiv Vs State of Raj., (1996 vol. 2 SCC page 175)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.)

1. By this criminal appeal, accusedappellant
Ajay
Singh
Chauhan
has
challenged the judgement and order dated
09.10.2019 passed by Additional Session
Judge / Special Judge (Anti Corruption)
Court No. 4, Varanasi in Session Trial
No.319 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Ajay
Singh Chauhan), arising out of Case Crime
No.174 of 2015, under Sections 498-A,
304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Rohaniya,
District Varanasi
by
which
accusedappellant has been convicted and sentenced
10 years rigorous imprisonment under
Section 304-B I.P.C., 2 years rigorous
imprisonment under Section 498-A I.P.C.
with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and 2 years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
2,000/- under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition
Act with default clause.

2. According to prosecution case,
Smt. Chanchal Singh daughter of informant
was married to accused-appellant Ajay
Singh Chauhan on 06.12.2013. After the
marriage everything was OK for six
months but later on, accused-appellant and
his other family members started harassing
victim in demand of dowry. She was asked
to take Rs.2,00,000/- from her father to
which she expressed her inability to bring
money in dowry on the ground that her
younger sister is to be married. She was
continuously subjected to cruelty. Victim
used to inform the entire story to her
parents on telephone. It was also informed
by her that accused-appellant and his
family members took out the ornaments
from her almirah. On 19.04.2015 at about
4:00 P.M., informant came to know that her
daughter committed suicide. When he
reached the house of accused-appellant, he
saw that his daughter died. There was no
rope in the room.

3. P.W.-1, Vijay Singh Chauhan
informant, presented a written tehrir Ex.Ka2 before the police station concerned
whereupon Chick F.I.R. Ex.Ka-10 was
drawn by constable Shri Prakash Singh and
entry of case was made in general diary,
copy whereof is Ex.Ka.11.

4. Inquest was done over the dead
body of Smt. Chanchal Singh. Inquest
report Ex.Ka.-2 was drawn by Officer
concerned P.W.-4 Anand Kumar Kannajiya,
Nayab Tehsildar and dead body was sent to
mortuary for post-mortem along with
relevant papers thereto.
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Post-mortem was done by P.W.-3
Dr. Satya Prakash over the dead body of
Smt. Chanchal Singh. Doctor prepared post
mortem report Ex.Ka.-3, noting antemortem injuries found on the person of
victim. According to doctor death of victim
was found due to asphyxia as a result of
ante-mortem hanging.

6. P.W.-5 Mukesh Chandra Uttam,
Investigating
Officer
under
took
the
investigation, visited the spot, prepared site
plan, recorded the statements of witnesses
and P.W.-6 Ram Sewak, after completing
entire
formalities
of
investigation,
submitted charge-sheet, Ex.Ka-9 against
the accused-appellant before the competent
court.

7. Case, being exclusively triable by
Court of Sessions, was committed to
Session
Court
which
came
to
be
transferred to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Court no. 14, Varanasi
who framed charges against the accusedappellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act to which the accused denied and
claimed to be tried.

8. In order to substantiate its case,
prosecution examined as many as seven
witnesses, out of whom PW-1 and P.W. 2
are the witnesses of fact and rest are formal
witnesses.

9. On closure of prosecution evidence
statement
of
accused-appellant
under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Court
explaining all incriminating circumstances
and
other
evidence. Accused
denied
prosecution story in toto and all formalities
of investigation were said to be wrong. He
claimed false implication. Suicidal death
was claimed.

10. Trial court on appreciation of
evidence adduced before it, found the
accused-appellant guilty and convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant as stated
above.

11. I have heard Sri Sanjay Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Purushottam Mani Tripathi, learned counsel
for the informant and learned AGA for the
State at length and perused the record.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that admittedly, Smt. Chanchal
Singh died within seven years of her
marriage
under
the
abnormal
circumstances. She committed suicide but
appellant is not responsible for her suicide.
There is no motive to accused-appellant to
commit the crime with the deceased. He
further submitted that entire witnesses
adduced by prosecution are not the eye
witness. There is no evidence that she has
been subjected to cruelty in demand of
dowry, hence no presumption under Section
113-B of Indian Evidence Act or Section
304-B I.P.C. is made out against the
accused-appellant. He further argued that it
has come in evidence that before her death,
victim went to her parental house where
she was humiliated by her brother and
sister-in-law (Bhabhi), due to which she got
frustrated
and
on
returning
to
her
matrimonial house, she decided her life to
end and committed suicide. He further
submitted that when appellant entered in
her room, he saw her dead body hanging
and lowered it. She was taken to hospital
and he informed her father. If he had
committed any crime, he would not have
informed the informant. There is material
contradiction in the statement of witnesses
so as to disbelieve the prosecution story. As
per statement of informant, money is said
to have been demanded for business
2 All. Ajay Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.
129
purpose which does not come under the
purview of Dowry Prohibition Act. Unless
money is demanded in the shape of dowry.
No presumption under Section 304-B I.P.C.
is made out. He further argued that if
criminal appeal fails on merit, he should be
dealt with sympathetically and his sentence
deserves to be reduced to the extent of
period already served by him in jail. The
accused-appellant is in jail for more than
six years. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant
placed
reliance
upon
the
judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Satbir Singh and another vs.
State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
1735--1736
of
2010
decided
on
28.05.2021.

13. On the other hand, learned AGA as
well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the appeal and submitted that Smt.
Chanchal Singh was married to accusedappellant in the year, 2013. After her
marriage, she was harassed and subjected to
cruelty in demand of dowry soon before her
death. She committed suicide by hanging
herself and died within 7 years of her
marriage. Accused-appellant deserves no
sympathy. Death of victim, under the
abnormal circumstances within 7 years of her
marriage, is an admitted fact. Learned AGA
as well as counsel for the informant relied
upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jatinder Kumar vs.
State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
1850 of 2020 decided on 17.12.2019.

14. At the outset, it is pertinent to
analyze the law on dowry death.

Section
304-B
IPC,
which
defines, and provides the punishment for
dowry demand, reads as under:

"304-B.
Dowry
death.
--(1)
Where the death of a woman is caused by
any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances
within seven years of her marriage and it is
shown that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for,
or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called ''dowry
death', and such husband or relative shall
be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation. --For the purpose of
this sub-section, ''dowry' shall have the same
meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death
shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years
but which may extend to imprisonment for
life." Section 304-B (1) defines ''dowry death'
of a woman. It provides that ''dowry death' is
where death of a woman is caused by burning
or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances, within seven
years of marriage, and it is shown that soon
before her death, she was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or any relative
of her husband, in connection with demand
for dowry. Sub-clause (2) provides for
punishment for those who cause dowry death.
Accordingly, in Major Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201, a three Judge
Bench of Apex Court held as follows:

"10. To sustain the conviction
under Section 304-B IPC, the following
essential ingredients are to be established:

(i) the death of a woman should
be caused by burns or bodily injury or
otherwise
than
under
a
''normal
circumstance';

(ii) such a death should have
occurred within seven years of her
marriage;

(iii) she must have been subjected
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband;
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be
for or in connection with demand of dowry;
and

(v) such cruelty or harassment is
shown to have been meted out to the
woman soon before her death."

15. Now, considering the entire
evidence, prosecution witnesses and other
evidence, admittedly, it transpires that
deceased was married to accused-appellant
in the year, 2013. She died in the year, 2015
i.e. within 7 years of her marriage under the
abnormal circumstances. She committed
suicide
by
hanging
herself
in
her
matrimonial house and accused-appellant is
her husband.

16. Only question remains for
consideration in the present appeal is,
"whether
Smt.
Chanchal
Singh
was
harassed after her marriage and she was
subjected to cruelty in demand of dowry
soon before her death or not".

17. P.W.-1 Vijay Singh Chauhan, who
happens to be the father of deceased
deposed in his examination-in-chief before
the trial court that his daughter Smt.
Chanchal Singh was married to accusedappellant Ajah Singh Chauhan in the year,
2013. After
her
marriage,
she
was
demanded
dowry
to
the
tune
of
Rs.2,00,000/- by her husband and her inlaws. When she showed her inability of
paying dowry, she was harassed and
humiliated. She was not provided food and
accused-appellant harassed her. Entire story
of harassment was narrated by her
whenever she came to her parental house.
She was continuously harassed and given
threat that if she does not meet the demand,
she would not survive. On the fateful day
i.e. 19.04.2015, accused-appellant Ajay
Singh Chauhan made a call on his mobile
and
informed
that
Smt.
Chanchal
committed suicide. He reached there along
with other family members and saw that his
daughter Smt. Chanchal Singh was lying
dead and there was no rope. When he
inquired regarding the incident, found no
response. Thereafter, he went to police
station concerned and got F.I.R. registered.

18. P.W.-2 Jai Prakash Singh, brother
of deceased deposed that his younger sister
Smt. Chanchal Singh was married to
accused-appellant Ajay Singh Chauhan in
the year, 2013 according to Hindu rites. In
her marriage sufficient dowry was given
but her husband and her in-laws were not
satisfied with the dowry given in the
marriage. Everything was OK for six
months after her marriage but later on they
started demand of dowry to the tune of
Rs.2,00,000/- on the pretext that service of
her husband in Dehradoon was over. He
has to deal with business. When her sister
Smt. Chanchal Singh came to her parental
house on the occasion of Bhaiduj, she told
that her husband and other members of inlaws were demanding the dowry to a tune
of Rs.2,00,000/- and if it is not given, they
will not leave her alive. Accused-appellant
started
beating
and
harassing
her.
Ornaments of victim was also taken from
her. Due to harassment given by accusedappellant,
she
committed
suicide
by
hanging herself in her in-laws house.

19. P.W.-3, Dr. Satya Prakash
conducting post-mortem over the dead
body of Smt. Chanchal Singh, deposed that
he was posted as Medical Officer in Pt.
Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Sadar Hospital,
Varanasi and conducted the post-mortem of
Smt. Chanchal Singh. He prepared the
post-mortem report Ex. Ka-3 and found
ante-mortem ligature mark measuring 32
cm. X 1.5 cm around the neck and two
2 All. Ajay Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.
131
contusions on her body. He noted the
injuries in post-mortem report. According
to doctor, death of victim was possible one
day before from post-mortem. The injury
no. 1 found on the person of deceased was
responsible for causing her death.

20. The witnesses withstood lengthy
cross-examination by defence but nothing
adverse could be brought on record so as to
disbelieve their testimonial statements.
Certainly, there are minor contradictions in
the evidence of witnesses but they are not
of such nature which could blemish the
truthfulness of their statements.

21. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector
of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124,
Court has held that minor contradictions
are bound to appear in the statements of
truthful witnesses as memory sometimes
plays false and sense of observation differs
from person to person.

22. We should not lest forget that no
prosecution case is foolproof and the same
is bound to suffer from some lacuna or the
other. It is only when such lacunae are on
material aspects going to the root of the
matter, it may have bearing on the outcome
of the case, else such shortcomings are to
be ignored. Reference may be made to a
recent decision of Apex Court (3 Judges) in
Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018, Smt.
Shamim v. State of (NCT of Delhi),
decided on 19.09.2018.

23. In the case of Rajinder Singh vs.
State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477, it was
held that any money or property or valuable
security demanded by any of the persons
mentioned in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, at or before or at any time
after the marriage which is reasonably
connected to the death of a married woman,
would necessarily be in connection with or
in relation to the marriage unless, the facts
of a given case clearly and unequivocally
point otherwise.

24. When the prosecution shows that
''soon before her death such woman has
been subjected by such person to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry', a presumption of
causation arises against the accused under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this
statutory
presumption.
Section 113-B,
Evidence Act reads as under:

"113B. Presumption as to dowry
death--When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her
death such woman has been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for, or
in connection with, any demand for dowry,
the Court shall presume that such person
had caused the dowry death.

Explanation. - For the purpose of
this section, "dowry death" shall have the
same meaning as in Section 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)"

25. Therefore, once all the essential
ingredients
are
established
by
the
prosecution, the presumption under Section
113-B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates
against the accused. This presumption of
causality that arises can be rebutted by the
accused.

26. In the present appeal deposition of
prosecution witnesses about torture and
demand for dowry made by appellant have
been believed by the Trial Court. Both
P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have narrated the facts
which would constitute demand of dowry
as also inflicting cruelty and torture upon
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the deceased victim. Such consistent stand
of these two witnesses cannot be said to
have been overshadowed. It is a finding on
fact upon proper appreciation of evidence. I
do not find any major contradiction in the
statements made by P.W.1 and P.W.2 on
demand of dowry subjecting the deceased
to cruelty. They stuck by their statements in
cross-examination. From their depositions,
a link can be established between such acts
of the appellant and death of the deceased
victim. Once these factors are proved,
presumption rests on the accused under
Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. The appellant attributed suicide of
the victim due to depression on account of
her neglection in parental house within a
short spell of time. Though the factum of
depression has been tried to be established
from the side of appellant, there is no
corroboration of such a depressive state of
mind of the deceased. Trial Court rejected
his defence. P.W.-1 father of the deceased,
and also P.W.2 brother of deceased have
proved the demand for dowry. This version
has run consistently from the statement
forming the basis of F.I.R. to deposition
stage and I do not think the Trial Court had
come to such conclusion in a perverse
manner.

27. So far as sentence of accusedappellant is concerned, it is always a
difficult task requiring balancing of various
considerations. The question of awarding
sentence is a matter of discretion to be
exercised
on
consideration
of
circumstances aggravating and mitigating
in the individual cases.

28. It is settled legal position that
appropriate sentence should be awarded
after giving due consideration to the facts
and circumstances of each case, nature of
offence and the manner in which it was
executed or committed. It is obligation of
court to constantly remind itself that right
of victim, and be it said, on certain
occasions person aggrieved as well as
society at large can be victims, never be
marginalised. The measure of punishment
should be proportionate to gravity of
offence. Object of sentencing should be to
protect society and to deter the criminal in
achieving avowed object of law. Further, it
is expected that courts would operate the
sentencing system so as to impose such
sentence which reflects conscience of
society and sentencing process has to be
stern where it should be. The Court will be
failing in its duty if appropriate punishment
is not awarded for a crime which has been
committed not only against individual
victim but also against society to which
criminal and victim belong. Punishment to
be awarded for a crime must not be
irrelevant but it should conform to and be
consistent with the atrocity and brutality
which the crime has been perpetrated,
enormity of crime warranting public
abhorrence and it should 'respond to the
society's cry for justice against the
criminal'.
[Vide:
Sumer
Singh
vs.
Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7
SCC 323, Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990)
4 SCC 731, M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC
554, Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2
SCC 175].

29. Hence, applying the principles
laid down in the aforesaid judgment and
having regard to the totality of facts and
circumstances of case, nature of offence
and the manner in which offence was
executed
or
committed,
I
find
that
punishment
imposed
upon
accusedappellant-Ajay Singh Chauhan by Trial
Court in impugned judgment and order is
not excessive and it appears fit and proper
and no question arises to interfere in the
2 All. Anil Kumar Rathore Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
133
matter on the point of punishment imposed
upon him.

30. In view of above discussion, the
appeal lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.

31. Certify the judgement along with
the lower court record to the court
concerned for compliance.
----------
(2022)02ILR A133
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6403 of 2021

Anil Kumar Rathore ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Vivek
Prakash
Mishra,
Meenakshi
Sharma, Sri Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A, Ms. Priyanka Midha, Sri Ram M.
Kaushik, Sri Dileep Kumar

A. Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections
193,194 & 195 .- Quashing of F.I.R. -
The 'judicial proceeding' within the meaning
of Cr.P.C. does not include the proceeding of
investigation before a Police Officer as the
evidence before a Police Officer is not taken
on oath.

B. Only the material that has come before
the court during enquiry or trial which is
required to be proved according to law of
evidence can be said to be evidence within
the meaning of Section 195 I.P.C.
C. Neither the St.ment recorded by Police
Officer u/S 161 nor the police diary prepared
u/S 172 Cr.P.C. of Chapter XII can be read in
evidence before a court of law. Even a St.ment
u/S 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be read as substantive
evidence and has only corroborative value.

D. An investigation preparatory to a trial by a
Magistrate would be a stage of a judicial
enquiry in view of Illustration 2 Explanation 2 to
section 193 I.P.C., while a police investigation
preparatory
to
a
Magistrial
enquiry
for
commitment would not.

E. The St.ments recorded at the stage of police
investigation are not permitted to be treated as
evidence at the trial under Cr.P.C. and Indian
Evidence Act and thus such St.ments cannot be
made basis to frame charge for offences u/Ss
193, 194,195 I.P.C. Similarly any electronic or
documentary evidence produced before a Police
Officer alleged to contain a false St.ment, false
entry cannot be made basis for conviction for an
offence u/S 193, 194,195 I.P.C. unless and until
such evidence is produced before a court of law
during the course of enquiry or trial and is
proved or exhibited as a documentary evidence.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun. & ors. AIR 2014
SC 1400

2. Ashok Pratap Rai Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 2500/2016

3. Shamsul Qamar Vs St.of U.P. (1995)4 SCC 430

4. Haji Mohd. & anr. Vs St. Rep. by the Inspector
of Police, Koradacheri Police Station, Tiruvarur
District 2019(1) MLJ(Criminal) 464

5.
Maharashtra
St.
Electricity
Distribution
Company Ltd. & anr. Vs Datar Switgear Ltd. &
ors. (2010)10 SCC 479

6. Perumal Vs Janki (2014)5 SCC 377

7. Pandurang Chandrakant Matre Vs St. of Mah.
(2009)10 SCC 773