# Kripa Shanker & Ors. Revisionists v. State of Uttar Pradesh - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 694 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-12 - **Bench:** Prabhat Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kripa-shanker-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-44198 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2007, affirming the judgment and order dated 17.03.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi-Gyanpur in 7 All. Kripa Shanker & Ors. Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 695 Case No.1143 of 2005 (State v. Jadawati Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.224 of 2001, under Sections 498-A, 326 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi. Headnotes: Dowry Demand - Attempt to Burn Bride - Conviction under Sections 498-A, 326 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction Where the victim sustained more than 60% burn injuries and medical evidence corroborated the prosecution case that kerosene was sprinkled and she was set ablaze inside her matrimonial home, and the testimony of the injured witness was consistent and supported by other prosecution witnesses, conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court calls for no interference in revision. Revisional jurisdiction being limited, re-appreciation of evidence is not warranted unless there is manifest illegality or perversity. The prosecution having proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, affirmation of conviction by the appellate court is proper. Result: Revision dismissed. Conviction and sentence affirmed. Lower court record directed to be transmitted to the Sessions Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) for compliance. ## Text 694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES requirement of recording satisfaction to the effect that there is sufficient evidence to proceed further, against the proposed accused. 30. A close scrutiny of the order impugned reveals that it is in the nature of final acquittal order without any regular trial of the proposed accused for the henious offence of murder, which is neither permissible nor sustainable in the eyes of law and if permitted to stand, will cause failure of justice. 31. For the reasons recorded above, this revision deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. Order impugned dated 27.09.2013 is set aside. Application (98ka) moved for summoning of opposite parties under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial is allowed. Lower court will take all necessary steps in this regard within two weeks from the date of filing of this order. However, it will be open to the Lower Court to decide whether proposed accused will be tried together with the original accused facing the trial or they will be tried separately as prescribed under Section 319(4) Cr.P.C. 32. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case and whatever observations have been made in this judgment are only for the purpose of deciding this revision. 33. No order as to costs. ----------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 4025 Of 2015 Kripa Shanker & Ors. ...Revisionists Versus State of Uttar Pradesh ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Revisionists: Prashant Kumar Singh, Rajendra Prasad Shukla Counsel for the Opposite Party: G.A. Procedural History: Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2007, affirming the judgment and order dated 17.03.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi-Gyanpur in 7 All. Kripa Shanker & Ors. Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 695 Case No.1143 of 2005 (State v. Jadawati Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.224 of 2001, under Sections 498-A, 326 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi. Headnotes: Dowry Demand - Attempt to Burn Bride - Conviction under Sections 498-A, 326 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction Where the victim sustained more than 60% burn injuries and medical evidence corroborated the prosecution case that kerosene was sprinkled and she was set ablaze inside her matrimonial home, and the testimony of the injured witness was consistent and supported by other prosecution witnesses, conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court calls for no interference in revision. Revisional jurisdiction being limited, re-appreciation of evidence is not warranted unless there is manifest illegality or perversity. The prosecution having proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, affirmation of conviction by the appellate court is proper. Result: Revision dismissed. Conviction and sentence affirmed. Lower court record directed to be transmitted to the Sessions Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) for compliance. (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. List has been revised. Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. are present. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi -Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2007 (Kripa Shanker and others v. State of U.P. ), confirming the judgement and order dated 17.03.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi-Gyanpur in Case No.1143 of 2005 (State v. Jadawati Devi and others), under Sections 498-A, 326 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi. 3. The facts narrated in the F.I.R. in narrow compass are as follows:- "The informant-Jagnarayan Pathak presented a written application before the officerin-charge, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi regarding the alive burning of the daughter for the sake of dowry. Marriage of Nagina Devi, d/o Jagnarayan Pathak, r/o village Saraiya, Police Station Cheelh, District Mirzapur was solemnized with Ravi Shankar s/o Kripa Shankar, r/o village Babhnauti, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar with Hindu Customs. Seven sets of jewellery along with Rs.15,000/- cash was given as a dowry. Soon after the marriage, his daughter Nagina Devi was being tortured for dowry. In the intervening night of 2/3.10.2001, mother-in-law Jarawati Devi, father-in-law Kripa Shankar, husband Ravi Shankar, brother-in-law Pradeep Kumar and Jeth Manoj Kumar after confining her in the room sprinkled 696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES kerosene upon Nagina Devi and set her ablaze. Nagina Devi raised alarm to save her life. Hearing that alarm, some anonymous person from the village informed Jagnarayan Pathak, informant/complainant father of Nagina Devi about the incident. In-laws ran away leaving Nagina Devi in a burnt condition. Informant Jagnarayan Pathak, his son Pappu and Subaas accompanied Nagina Devi to Government Hospital, Bhadohi. After primary treatment, she was referred to Kabir Chaura Hospital, Varanasi. Daughter of informant was still struggling with life and death." 4. On the above written information, case in crime no.224 of 2001, under Sections 498A, 326 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar. 5. After the criminal law was set in motion, the Investigating Officer investigated and submitted a charge-sheet against accused persons namely Kripa Shankar, Manoj Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar alias Ravi Shankar, Jarawati and Pradeep Kumar under Sections 498A, 326 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. 6. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi (Court No.6) framed the charges against the above-named accused persons under Sections 498A, 326 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. At the trial, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge, examined P.W.-1 Jagnarayan Pathak, P.W.-2 Nagina Devi, P.W.-3 Lalti Devi, P.W.-4 Dr. Pravin Chandra Tiwari and P.W.-5 Constable Indrasan. Apart from adducing oral evidence, prosecution placed reliance upon a large number of documents. Accused persons chose not to adduce any evidence. 8. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi (Court No.6) found that the accused revisionists therein were guilty and imposed the sentence. 9. On appeal being preferred by the convicts, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur gave the stamp of approval to the conviction and the sentence. 10 Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that both the courts below have faulted in accepting the evidence cited by the prosecution. It is also urged that the appellate court has been swayed away by the emotion. The approach as requisite under the criminal law has been flawed and the result is unwarranted affirmation of conviction. 11. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, in oppugnation, has contended that the learned trial magistrate as well as learned appellate court have analysed the evidence in a microscopic manner and found that the accused revisionists are guilty of the offence. 12. The injury report of Nagina Devi reveals that she was examined on 03.10.2001 at Rajabalwant Singh Hospital, Bhadohi and following injury was found on her body:- 7 All. Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla 697 "(i) Superficial to deep burn both lower limbs (front and back), whole of back and both fore arms and hand more than 60%." 13. Patient was in semi-conscious state. She was referred to Kabir Chaura Hospital, Varanasi. The cause of injury was burn severe in nature (more than 60%). 14. P.W.-4, Dr. Pravin Chandra Tiwari has deposed that this injury might be caused in the intervening night of 2/3.10.2001 by sprinkling kerosene and by thereafter burning. 15. .W.-1, Jagnarayan Pathak has supported the prosecution version and deposed in crossexamination that when he reached at the in-laws place of her daughter everyone has fled-away when he entered the house, he saw that his daughter was in a precarious condition. 16. P.W.-3 Lalti Devi w/o Jagnarayan Pathak has proved the demand of dowry by the accused revisionists. 17. P.W.-2 victim Nagina Devi has also supported the prosecution version and deposed that her husband Ravi Shankar was not demanding dowry but deposed that accused revisionist Jarawati set her ablaze, accused revisionist Pradeep sprinkled kerosene and accused revisionists Manoj Kumar and Kripa Shankar directed to set the victim Nagina Devi ablaze. She was set ablaze inside her in-laws house. This factum remained unexplained by the defence side. 18. Thus, acceptation of the direct evidence on record on proper scrutiny and analysis of proof, the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the revision stands dismissed. 19. Dismissed. 20. Let the entire record of the lower court be sent to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) for compliance. ----------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J. Contempt Application (Criminal) No.- 46 Of 2015 Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava ...Petitioner Versus Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla ...Respondent