# State of U.P v. Anil Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 826
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-18
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 356 of 2022
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-anil-kumar-ors-50605
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri Siddharth Shankar, Sri Satish Chandra
Mishra,
Sri
Sathish
Chandra
Pandey,
Sri
Siddharth Shankar

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498 - A, 304 - B, 120 - B &
302/34 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section 4 - conviction under Section 306 IPC
(abetment
of
suicide)
was
legally
impermissible - charges of homicidal death
cannot culminate in conviction for suicidal
death - no independent witness of cruelty
produced - allegations of dowry harassment
made solely through phone calls without
contemporaneous
written
complaints
or
electronic evidence - postmortem showed
intact hyoid bone; medical opinion suggested
suicide by hanging - not a case of murder -
failure of prosecution to prove cruelty or
dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt -
benefit of doubt must go to accused - appeal
of accused - appellant allowed - conviction set
aside - appeals by St. and informant against
acquittal dismissed.

Relevant Sections:

Sections 498 - A, 304 - B, 120 - B, 302/34, 306
IPC; Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Section
107 IPC; Section 372 Cr.P.C.
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors.
827
Case Law Discussed:

## Text

826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8
Multiplier
(G)
2,13,314 x 15 =
31,99,710/-
9
Total loss of
dependency
31,99,710/-
10
Conventional
Heads
(a) Loss of
consortium
(b) Loss of
Estate
(c)
Funeral
Expenses
70,000/-
11
Total
Compensatio
n
32,69,710/-
12
Interest
7%

VI. Conclusion and Directions:

51. The amount of compensation to
which the claimants have thus been found
entitled shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company within three months before the
learned tribunal. Thereafter the learned
tribunal shall release the amount to the
claimants without delay. The amount
already disbursed to the claimants (if any)
shall be duly adjusted.

52. The amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited by the appellant while instituting
the appeal shall be forthwith remitted to the
learned tribunal. The amount shall be paid
to the claimants as part of the awarded
compensation amount.

53. The cross-objection filed on
behalf of the respondents-claimants is
allowed and the appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 826
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Government Appeal No. 356 of 2022
With
Crl. Appl. No. 1823 of 2022
&
Crl. Appl. u/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 672 of 2022

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shiv Kumar Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siddharth Shankar, Sri Satish Chandra
Mishra,
Sri
Sathish
Chandra
Pandey,
Sri
Siddharth Shankar

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498 - A, 304 - B, 120 - B &
302/34 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section 4 - conviction under Section 306 IPC
(abetment
of
suicide)
was
legally
impermissible - charges of homicidal death
cannot culminate in conviction for suicidal
death - no independent witness of cruelty
produced - allegations of dowry harassment
made solely through phone calls without
contemporaneous
written
complaints
or
electronic evidence - postmortem showed
intact hyoid bone; medical opinion suggested
suicide by hanging - not a case of murder -
failure of prosecution to prove cruelty or
dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt -
benefit of doubt must go to accused - appeal
of accused - appellant allowed - conviction set
aside - appeals by St. and informant against
acquittal dismissed.

Relevant Sections:

Sections 498 - A, 304 - B, 120 - B, 302/34, 306
IPC; Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Section
107 IPC; Section 372 Cr.P.C.
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors.
827
Case Law Discussed:

1. Sangaraboina Sreenu Vs St. of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3233

2. Harjit Singh Vs St. of Pun., Crl. Appeal
No.756/1999

3. Mangat Ram Vs St. of Har., Crl. Appeal
No.696/2009

4. Satbir Singh & anr. Vs St. of Har., (2021) 6
SCC 1

5. St. of M.P. Vs Jogendra & anr., (2022) 5 SCC
401

6. Mariano Anto Bruno & anr. Vs Inspector of
Police, Crl. Appeal No.1628/2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. Upon the death of Krishna Kumari,
the daughter of the first informant Lajja
Ram Baisala, a First Information Report
was lodged on 18.12.2014 with the
allegation that Krishna Kumari, who was
the daughter of the first informant, had
been married to Lalit Mohan Poswal on
15.2.2014 and that Lalit Mohan Poswal; his
father Anil Kumar; his mother Simla @
Seema and sister Bhawna tortured Krishna
Kumari mentally as well as physically for
getting further dowry and ultimately killed
her. In the First Information Report, it was
stated that the deceased on various
occasions had complained about physical
torture. It was also stated that the first
informant had on three occasions visited
the house of the in-laws of the deceased
daughter to make them understand that it
was not possible for him to give further
dowry, yet the in-laws kept on demanding
further dowry. It was alleged that the inlaws of the deceased daughter openly asked
for a Fortuner Car; 11 lacs rupees; 40 tola
gold; a big necklace for the mother-in-law
and a gold chain for the husband. It was
stated in the First Information Report that
the first informant was told by his deceased
daughter on an earlier occasion that she
used to tell her in-laws that her father
would not be able to give any further
dowry as he had three more daughters to
look after. She allegedly also used to tell
her father-in-law that she was in a job
earning Rs.40,000/- per month and which
money she was always giving to her inlaws. Ultimately in the First Information
Report it was alleged that the daughter of
the first informant was murdered by the
accused on 18.12.2014 for dowry. In this
connection, the allegation was that Lalit
Mohan Poswal (husband of the deceased
daughter); Anil Kumar (father-in-law);
Simla @ Seema (mother-in-law); Bhawna
(nanad) and Tejpal (mama of Lalit Mohan
Poswal) were responsible for the death of
Krishna Kumari, the daughter of the first
informant and it was prayed that they be
punished for having committed murder.

2. The police investigated into the
matter and submitted its charge-sheet
before the Court which in its turn framed
charges against Lalit Mohan Poswal; Anil
Kumar, Smt. Simla @ Seema under
sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B and 302/34
of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act on 20.6.2016. On
22.11.2016 charges were also framed
against Tejpal and Bhawna under the very
same sections of Indian Penal Code and
Dowry Prohibition Act. Since twice charges
were framed, two Sessions Trials came into
existence namely Sessions Trial No.332 of
2015 and Sessions Trial No.239 of 2016.

3. A trial was undergone. In it, the
prosecution had produced nine prosecution
witnesses and the defence had produced 14
defence witnesses. The accused were given
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an opportunity to give their statements
under section 313 Cr.P.C.

4. PW-1 Lajja Ram Baisala was the
first informant and the father of the
deceased; PW-2 Rajbala was the mother of
the deceased; PW-3 Suneel Kumar was the
brother of the deceased; PW-4 Dr. Lalit
Kumar Singh was the doctor who had
conducted the post-mortem; PW-5 Pravin
Yadav was the Tehsildar who was given the
responsibility of preparing the inquest
report; PW-6 Bijendra Singh was the SubInspector who had lodged the First
Information Report and had also proven the
same and PW-7 Dr. Anoop Singh, PW-8
Anil Kumar and PW-9 Jitendra Kumar
were the Investigating Officers.

5.

During
the
trial
various
documentary evidence were brought on
record. Ultimately upon the conclusion of
the sessions trial, the accused Anil Kumar
and Shimla @ Seema were held not guilty
in
Sessions
Trial
No.332
of
2015.
Likewise; Tejpal and Bhawna were also
held to be not guilty in Sessions Trial
No.239 of 2016. However, Lalit Mohan
Poswal, the husband of the deceased was
convicted for the charge under section 306
IPC in Sessions Trial No.332 of 2015.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant
Lalit Mohan Poswal has filed Criminal
Appeal No.1823 of 2022. The first
informant Lajja Ram Baisala also filed an
appeal against acquittal being Criminal
Appeal Under Section 372 Cr.P.C. No.672
of 2022. It was filed against the acquittal of
Anil Kumar; Shimla @ Seema; Bhawna
and Tejpal and for the conviction of Lalit
Mohan Poswal under sections 498-A, 304B, 120-B and 302/34 of Indian Penal Code
and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The State of Uttar Pradesh also filed an
appeal being Government Appeal No.356
of 2022 against the judgment and order of
acquittal.

7. During the trial, PW-1 had
appeared in the witness box and had stated
that his daughter had been murdered by the
accused persons as their demands for
dowry were not fulfilled. He has stated in
his statement given before the Court that
after the marriage had taken place, he had
gone to the house of the in-laws thrice to
make them understand that it was not
possible for him to give any further dowry.
On 12.6.2014, he has stated, he had gone to
the house of the in-laws of the daughter and
he stayed there for a day and took his
daughter back to his house but because of
the social pressure, he again sent back her
daughter to her in-laws' house. In July,
2014 again he had brought his daughter to
her Maika but again had sent her back to
her in-laws' house. He had stated in his
statement-in-chief that Tejpal, one of the
accused who was the Mama of the accused
Lalit Kumar Poswal, as per his daughter,
used to come in the evening everyday and
used to instigate other accused persons to
ask for dowry. He has further stated that
when the accused persons continued with
their atrocities then on 11.12.2014 upon
getting a phone call from his daughter on
10.12.2014 that the in-laws were indulging
in cruelties, had sent his son for bringing
the daughter to her Maika. He had stated
that on 18.12.2014 before the death had
taken place in the morning also his
daughter talked to him and had expressed
her concern that she would be killed. He
has stated that while he was preparing go to
to the house of the in-laws of his daughter,
he received a message that the daughter had
died. The message was received from his
son who was living in Pune and was
working in the Army. He then reached the
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors.
829
spot where the police was present. He had
also stated about the articles which he had
given at the time of the marriage. In the
cross-examination, PW-1 is consistently
firm on the statement given in the
statement-in-chief and had replied to the
questions put to him.

8. PW-2 who was the mother of the
deceased also gave her statement and has
reiterated the fact that the daughter was
being tortured by the in-laws while she was
alive and because of the demand of dowry,
the in-laws killed her.

9. PW-3 who was the brother of the
deceased and son of the first informant also
gave his statement and has throughout
stated that on various occasions there were
phone calls with regard to atrocities which
were being meted out to her and has stated
that consequent to the atrocities, the
deceased was killed.

10. PW-4 Dr. Lalit Kumar Singh who
has proved the post mortem report and has
stated that the hyoid bone was intact has
stated that the death was on account of
ante-mortem injuries and because of
asphyxia due to hanging.

11. PW-5 was the witness of the
inquest. The other witnesses i.e. PWs.-6, 7,
8 and 9 were the Investigating Officers.

12. Sri Satish Chandra Mishra,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
assailing the judgment and order of the
Sessions Court dated 5.3.2022, has raised
the following grounds :-

(i) The charges were under sections
498-A, 304-B, 120-B and 302/34 of Indian
Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act but the punishment was
under section 306 IPC. He has, therefore,
submitted that a punishment under section
306 IPC was not possible when the charge
was under section 302 as the two offences
are of distinct and different categories. He
has stated that while the basic constituent
of an offence under section 302 is
homicidal death, the offence under section
306 is suicidal death and abetment thereof.
He, therefore, has submitted that the Court
erred in convicting the appellant under
section 306 IPC when no case was made
out under sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B
and 302/34 of IPC and section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. In this regard, learned
counsel for the appellant has relied upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Sangaraboina Sreenu vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in AIR 1997 SC 3233.

(ii) Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the PWs-1, 2 and 3 were
all family members of the deceased and
they were all interested witnesses. Even
though there were neighbours who must
have witnessed the cruelty etc., no
independent witness was produced.

(iii) Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that when throughout PWs.-
1, 2 and 3 had stated that the deceased was
continuously complaining of harassment,
cruelty, demand of dowry and about the
apprehension that she might be killed, then
complaint ought to have been lodged, but
in fact no complaint was made anywhere in
writing
by
the
complainants'
family.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that even though on various occasions it
has been mentioned that there were phone
calls being made by the deceased but no
complaint/written complaint was ever made
by the deceased with regard to cruelty
before any forum whatsoever.

(iv) Learned counsel for the appellant,
therefore, states that when there was no
documentary evidence and when there was
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no independent witness then the phone
calls which have been mentioned by the
complainant's side have no importance as it
was not clear as to what conversation the
deceased had with her family members.

(v) Learned counsel for the appellant
has argued that all the family members of
both sides were earning members and they
were
economically
and
financially
independent and nobody required the
money of the other, yet the prosecution had
tried to come up with a case that the family
of the in-laws was demanding money.

(vi) Learned counsel for the appellant
argued that the statement of the Doctor and
the post mortem report clearly went to
show that the deceased had died due to
suicide and, therefore, submitted that
definitely there was no case of murder.

(vii) Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that even the conviction under
section 306 IPC was erroneously done as
absolutely no evidence was found by which
it could be held that the appellant had
abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
There was no evidence on record indicating
that the harassment before the death was
such that the deceased was forced to
commit suicide.

(viii) Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that under section 107 IPC,
abetment has been defined. Since the
learned counsel has laid much stress on
section 107 IPC, the same is being
reproduced here as under :

"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person
abets the doing of a thing, who--

First.-- Instigates any person to to that
thing; or

Secondly-- Engages with one or more
other person or persons in any conspiracy
for the doing of that thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, an in order to the doing of
that thing; or

Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1--A person who, by
wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior
to or at the time of the commission of an
act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act."

Learned counsel for the appellant,
therefore, submitted that there was no
instigation whatsoever which could have
been said to have instigated the deceased to
such an extent that she committed suicide.

(ix) Learned counsel for the appellant
in the end submitted that the appellant is a
peace loving person and was never
involved in any criminal case and,
therefore, the conviction be set-aside and
the appellant be acquitted.

13. Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the complainant while
making his submissions in Criminal Appeal
No.672 of 2022 i.e. the appeal which he
had filed against the acquittal of Anil
Kumar; Simla @ Seema; Bhawna and
Tejpal and for the enhancement of the
sentence viz.-a-viz. Lalit Kumar Poswal
has stated that if the statement of PW-1 is
seen then it would reveal that after the
marriage of the deceased-Krishna Kumari
and the accused-Lalit Kumar Poswal was
solemnized on 15.2.2014, continuously
their demand for dowry was there; because
of the demand, on 12.6.2014, the father of
the deceased had taken Krishna Kumari to
his home and kept her for 10-12 days.
Thereafter the deceased was once again
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors.
831
taken back by her father in July, 2014. The
PW-1, as per the learned counsel for the
first informant, has stated in his statementin-chief that on 10.12.2014, the deceased
had rung up and had said that she was
beaten on the previous day. PW-1 thereafter
sent his son on 11.12.2014 to fetch Krishna
Kumari but the in-laws had refused to send
Krishna Kumari back to her Maika.
Learned counsel for the complainant
further submitted that PW-1 had spent
around Rs.40 lacs in the marriage. Quite a
bit of it was spent on account of the
pressure exerted on him. He has stated that
the EMIs for the car of the deceased were
also being paid by his son. PW-1 had stated
that he had himself seen a wound on the
side of neck of the deceased. In effect,
learned counsel for the complainant has
stated that there was a demand for dowry
which included the demand of a Fortuner
Car, 11 lacs rupees and a gold chain and
which when were not given, the accused
Lalit Kumar Poswal and other family
members, who were also accused, had
killed the deceased.

14. Similarly on the basis of the
statements made by PW-2 and PW-3,
learned counsel for the complainant has
stated that the accused had actually killed
the deceased. Learned counsel for the
complainant has further stated that the call
details of the phone calls which were made
by the deceased were also on record and he
has pointed out to the number of seconds
the calls had lasted and he tried to corelate
the dates which were given in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses
with the dates which were there in the call
reports and has tried to establish that even
if there was no independent witness, the
fact that the call details matched with the
timings which were given in the statements
of
the
prosecution
witnesses
clearly
established that there was a demand of
dowry and because of the non-fulfillment
of the demand, the deceased was tortured
and that ended in the murder.

15.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant relying upon the judgments of
the Supreme Court in Harjit Singh vs.
State of Punjab (Appeal (Crl.) No.756 of
1999 decided on 8.12.2005); Mangat
Ram vs. State of Haryana (Criminal
Appeal No.696 of 2009 decided on
27.3.2014); Satbir Singh & Anr. vs. State
of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC 1; State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Jogendra & Anr.
(2022) 5 SCC 401 and in Mariano Anto
Bruno & Anr. vs. The Inspector of Police
(Criminal Appeal No.1628 of 2022
decided on 12.10.2022) has stated that
when mental and physical torture, cruelty
and demand of dowry were there, the only
inevitable conclusion was that the deceased
was murdered. The conclusion was all the
more inevitable when the death had
occurred within seven years of the marriage
of deceased and the accused. He, therefore,
submitted that the accused had to defend
themselves and had to prove that they were
not guilty.

16. Learned AGA has also adopted
the arguments made by learned counsel for
the complainant and submitted that since
there were clear evidence available on
record with regard to the cruelty and
demand of dowry which had resulted in the
death of the deceased, the judgment and
order of acquittal be set aside and the
appellant be convicted under sections 498A, 304-B, 120-B and 302/34 of IPC and
section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

17. Having heard Sri Satish Chandra
Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Sri Ashutosh Mishra and Sri Siddharth
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant,
Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the
complainant and the learned AGA, we are
of the view that Criminal Appeal No.1823
of 2022 filed by the accused Lalit Kumar
Poswal be allowed and the Criminal Appeal
Under Section 372 Cr.P.C. No.672 of 2022
and the Government Appeal No.356 of
2022 be dismissed.

18. Firstly, we are definitely of the
view that the judgment and order of the
Sessions Court was erroneous in as much
as when the charges were under sections
498-A, 304-B, 120-B and 302/34 IPC and
section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the
accused persons were tried for a homicide,
then the appellant could not have been held
guilty for a charge under section 306 IPC
which was for the abetment of a suicide.
Suicide is something which a person
commits on his own and murder is an act
by which the accused with an intention to
kill, kills another person and, therefore we
find that when the accused-appellant was
being charged under sections 498-A, 304B, 120-B and 302/34 of IPC and section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, he could not be
held guilty under section 306 IPC.

19. Though we could have allowed
the appeal for the simple reason that the
trial was undergone was for homicide but
the punishment was given for suicide, we
are also adverting to the other arguments
made by learned counsel for the parties.

20. Definitely, we find that there was
no independent witnesses brought during
the trial for establishing that there was
cruelty. The accused and the deceased both
were living in urban areas where there were
houses in the neighbourhood. Definitely
independent witnesses could have been
produced from amongst the neighbours
who had seen and witnessed the cruelty and
when
no
independent
witness
was
produced, the only inevitable conclusion is
that in fact the cruelty was not witnessed by
any independent witness and, therefore, the
allegation of cruelty becomes doubtful.

21. We also find that whenever the
deceased complained about cruelty to her
family members, it was always on the
phone and never in writing. In the present
age of e-communication, when we tend to
text messages, e-mail, WhatsApp and use
other messaging systems, not one single
message was sent by the deceased to her
parents to indicate that there was any
cruelty taking place viz.-a-viz. her. Thus
the allegation of cruelty definitely becomes
doubtful.

22. Also the Court finds that the
family of the deceased was an educated
family. The father and brother were
working in the Armed Forces. If there was
any complaint of such a magnitude which
was shown in the First Information Report
and in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses then the Court feels that an
educated person should have made a
complaint before some appropriate forum.
In the absence of any complaint being
made, the allegations of cruelty become
doubtful.

23.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant has taken us through various
statements and has laid much stress on
various
telephone
calls
which
were
allegedly made by the deceased to her
parents. We, however, are not convinced
with this argument of learned counsel for
the complainant. We feel that daughters do
make phone calls to their parents and if
those phone calls were made, then there
was nothing very extraordinary. Further we
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Har Dayal Singh & Ors.
833
find that not many phone calls exceeded a
minute's time and, therefore, it appears that
there were phone calls only to say 'hello'
and 'Good Morning'. It cannot, therefore,
be concluded that these phone calls were
made to make complaints to the parents or
to the brother with regard to cruelty. If such
complaints were made, they would take
much more time than the phone calls
details show.

24. Further we find that there was no
instigation to the deceased to the extent that
she could end her life. The hyoid bone was
intact and, therefore, the only conclusion
was that it was a suicide. If the hyoid bone
is
broken
then,
under
the
medical
jurisprudence, normally it would mean that
the death was caused due to strangulation.
The Doctor has also concluded that the
death occurred because of hanging which
had resulted in asphyxia.

25. Upon considering all the aspects,
we are of the view that the appellant Lalit
Kumar Poswal in Criminal Appeal No.1823
of 2022 was not guilty of the charges which
were framed against him. He, therefore, is
being acquitted.

26. Under such circumstances, the
judgment and order dated 5.3.2022 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-1,
Gautam Buddha Nagar, so far as it convicts
the appellant Lalit Kumar Poswal, is
quashed and is set-aside. The appellant be
released forthwith if he is not required in
any other criminal case.

27. Since we had allowed the
Criminal Appeal No.1823 of 2022, for all
the reasons stated above, Criminal Appeal
U/S 372 Cr.P.C. No.672 of 2022 and
Government Appeal No.356 of 2022 stand
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 833
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA
SHUKLA, J.

Government Appeal No. 1873 of 1984

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Har Dayal Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.N. Mishra, Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, Sri
Vidya Kant Tripathi

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal
against acquittal - Principles reiterated -
Trial Court's judgment of acquittal not
found
perverse
-
Medical
evidence
inconsistent with prosecution story -
Injuries on deceased and eyewitnesses
unexplained - Doubt regarding presence
of PW - 1 and PW - 2 at the spot - Minor
contradictions not sufficient to overturn
acquittal
-
High
Court
declined
to
interfere.

Held: Where two views are reasonably possible
on the basis of the evidence on record, the one
favouring the accused should be upheld in
appeal against acquittal. In the present case,
prosecution failed to convincingly establish
presence of eyewitnesses, motive, or credible
explanation for injuries. Trial Court's findings
not perverse or irrational. Hence, interference
unwarranted.

Appeal Dismissed.

Case Law Discussed: