# State of U.P v. Dharmendra Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 45
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-27
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 2949 of 2003
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-dharmendra-singh-ors-45599
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-Ss. 498A
& 304-B-Leave to appeal-against order of
acquittal-no independent corroboration foundtestimony not trustworthy-no evidence foundpresumption of innocence-no latent or patent
infirmity-in the judgment of the Trial CourtAppeal Dismissed.

B. Held, it would be relevant to take note of
fact that we after careful scrutiny of the
impugned judgment discover no perversity in
the judgment of trial court. We are fully
conscious
of
fact
that
presumption
of
innocence is available to the accused even up
to this appellate stage which got strengthened
by order of acquittal in favour of accused by
the trial court. Thus the view taken by the trial
court in recording finding of acquittal is just
and reasonable. Even if other view is possible it
would not be proper to substitute our own view
in place of finding recorded by the trial court.
This approach is to be avoided and the view as
taken by the trial court has got to be affirmed.
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal the
court should keep in view the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused as the same
gets fortified by his acquittal if the view taken
by the trial court is well grounded and based
on material on record. We are, accordingly, not
inclined to interfere with the judgment and the
order of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge in
respect of the accused-respondents. The
instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. Leave
to appeal is thus refused. Accordingly, the
instant appeal is dismissed.

Govt. Appeal dismissed. (E-8)

List ofcases cited: -

## Text

2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Dharmendra Singh & Ors.
45

9. In the final count leave to appeal is
refused and this appeal loses its force and
the same is dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A45
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I,
J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Government Appeal No. 2949 of 2003

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Dharmendra Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
------

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-Ss. 498A
& 304-B-Leave to appeal-against order of
acquittal-no independent corroboration foundtestimony not trustworthy-no evidence foundpresumption of innocence-no latent or patent
infirmity-in the judgment of the Trial CourtAppeal Dismissed.

B. Held, it would be relevant to take note of
fact that we after careful scrutiny of the
impugned judgment discover no perversity in
the judgment of trial court. We are fully
conscious
of
fact
that
presumption
of
innocence is available to the accused even up
to this appellate stage which got strengthened
by order of acquittal in favour of accused by
the trial court. Thus the view taken by the trial
court in recording finding of acquittal is just
and reasonable. Even if other view is possible it
would not be proper to substitute our own view
in place of finding recorded by the trial court.
This approach is to be avoided and the view as
taken by the trial court has got to be affirmed.
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal the
court should keep in view the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused as the same
gets fortified by his acquittal if the view taken
by the trial court is well grounded and based
on material on record. We are, accordingly, not
inclined to interfere with the judgment and the
order of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge in
respect of the accused-respondents. The
instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. Leave
to appeal is thus refused. Accordingly, the
instant appeal is dismissed.

Govt. Appeal dismissed. (E-8)

List ofcases cited: -

1.
Bhadragiri
Venketa
Ravi
Vs.
Public
Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 2013
(4) Supreme 450.

2. Kanhaiya Lal and others Vs. State of
Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 1940

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard learned A.A.G. for the
State-appellant and perused the material
on record.

2. The application has been filed by
the State-appellant with the prayer that
leave to appeal may be granted against the
judgement and order dated 23.01.2003
passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.2, Agra, in Sessions Trial
No.925 of 1999, State Vs. Dharmendra
and others arising out of Case Crime
No.28 of 1999, under Sections 498A,
304B, 201 IPC, Police Station Basoni,
District Agra whereby the accusedrespondents Dharmendra Singh, Hawaldar
Singh and Chameli Devi have been
acquitted of charge under Sections 498A,
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
304B I.P.C. whereas accused-respondents
Dharmendra Singh, Raj Kumar, Ravindra
Singh, Santosh and Nand Kishore have
been acquitted of charge under Section
201 I.P.C.

3. The prosecution version, as is
apparent from the impugned judgment
makes it evident that the written report
was lodged by the informant Promod
Kumar against the present accusedrespondents under Section 498, 304B, 201
I.P.C. alleging therein that he got his sister
Somwati wedded Dharmendra Singh on
11.07.1994. In the marriage, he gifted
Rs.40000/-, television, stitching machine,
fan, double bed, sofaset, gas oven, wrist
watch, wall watch and utensils etc. After
passage of time, a scooter was demanded
from in-laws side. His sister was subjected
to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of
the demand of scooter. Therefore, the
informant's sister being perplexed, wrote a
letter to her father. On receipt of the letter,
when informant's father went there, she
told the entire incident who took her to his
home and got her educated up to class XII.
In the meanwhile, though the in-laws side
came to take his sister giving assurance
that there will be no problem but his sister
was subject to cruelty because of nonfulfillment of demand of scooter, the oral
as well as written information whereof was
given by his sister. Thereafter, on
27.06.199, Dharmendra, Hawaldar Singh
and Chameli wife of Hawaldar Singh
murdered
his
sister
and
caused
disappearance of the body of his sister.
This report is Ext. Ka-5.

4. Record further reveals that
contents of the written information were
taken down in the concerned Check FIR at
Case Crime No.28 of 1999 under Sections
498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C., at Police Station
Basoni, District Agra. Check FIR is Ext.
Ka-7. On the basis of entries so made in
the check F.I.R., a case was registered
against the accused-respondents in the
relevant G.D. at aforesaid case crime
number at Police Station Basoni, under
aforesaid
sections
of
I.P.C.
against
accused-respondents. General diary copy
is Ext. Ka-8.

5. The investigation ensued and the
Investigating Officer took note of all
materials, completed investigation and
filed charge sheet (Ext. Ka-11) against the
accused-respondents under Section 498A,
304B, 201 I.P.C., whereupon the case was
committed to the court of Sessions for
trial.

6. In the trial, accused-respondent
Dharmendra Singh was charged for
offence under sections 498A, 304B, 201
I.P.C.,
accused-respondents
Hawaldar
Singh and Chameli Devi were charged for
offence under Sections 498A and 304B
I.P.C. whereas accused-respondents Raj
Kumar, Ravindra Singh, Santosh and
Nand Kishore were charged for offence
under Sections 201 I.P.C. Charge was read
over and explained to them, to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution in an endeavour
to establish the above charge examined
Pramod Kumar PW-1, Hem Singh PW-2,
Smt. Shanti PW-3,
Head
Constable
Ramveer
Sharma
PW-4,
and
the
Investigating
Officer,
Ghanshyam
Chaurasiya PW-5 besides proving relevant
papers which have been elaborately dealt
with in the impugned judgment by the trial
court.

8. No more evidence was adduced on
behalf of the prosecution. Therefore,
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Dharmendra Singh & Ors.
47
evidence for the prosecution was closed
and statement of the accused-respondents
was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein
though
they
admitted
the
solemnization
of
marriage
of
the
informant's
sister
Somwati
with
Dharmendra
Singh
but
they
denied
demand of dowry and their involvement in
the incident by saying that they have been
falsely implicated in this case. The defence
produced Chhotey Singh DW-1 and Dr.
Birendra Kumar Garg DW-2. Thereafter,
evidence for the defence was also closed
and the case was posted for arguments.

9. The trial court after churning the
entire facts and evidence recorded findings
to the effect that testimony of the
prosecution
witnesses
is
full
of
contradictions and discrepancies and the
same is not credible evidence. Testimony
of the prosecution witnesses does not
inspire confidence. Therefore, the trial
court acquitted accused-respondents from
all the charges. Hence this government
appeal.

10. Learned A.A.G. for the State has
submitted
that
as
per
charge
and
circumstances stated, the first information
report was lodged by the informant on
01.07.1999 regarding dowry death being
caused to the victim Somwati who was
wedded
to
Dharmendra
Singh
on
11.07.1994. The basic allegation was
regarding non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry. It being so, there was ample proof
of dowry death having been taken place
within seven years of marriage. Factum of
unnatural death, cruelty being perpetrated
by the in-laws of the deceased was
established,
thus
all
the
ingredients
enshrined under Section 304B I.P.C. were
very much attracted in this case still the
trial court working on whims and
conjectures by erroneous analogy and
appraisal of facts and evidence on record
recorded acquittal of the aforesaid accused
which is not justified in the eye of law, for
the reason that the burden of proof was
primarily on the prosecution to the extent
that the factum of the marriage, demand of
dowry,
perpetration
of
cruelty,
and
unnatural death was required to be proved
which elements were proved reasonably
and satisfactorily before the trial court.
However, the trial court of its own
supplemented reasoning which was not
admissible and applicable to the scattered
facts and circumstances of the case.

11. We have considered the aforesaid
submissions and perused the judgment
impugned in this appeal. The moot point
involved for consideration in this appeal is
as to whether the trial court based its
finding of acquittal without any material?

12. In this context, we find that the
accused have been acquitted of charges
levelled against them. The core contention
raised
on
behalf
of
the
accusedrespondents is whether all the ingredients
as contained under Section 304B I.P.C.
were established and proved beyond
reasonable doubt. In that regard, there is
specific finding primarily on the point of
unnatural death being caused to the
deceased Somwati which point has not
been proved satisfactorily as the evidence
on record very much suggests finding
arrived by the trial court.

13. Similarly, the point of demand of
dowry and perpetration of cruelty has not
been established by the prosecution. As
per evidence, the demand raised from the
deceased and her family was specifically
regarding a scooter. The trial court has
exhaustively dealt with the aforesaid
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aspect of the case and also taken note of
several guidelines issued in several cases
by Hon'ble Apex Court and these citations
were discussed in paragraph no.11 of the
judgment impugned in this appeal.

14. As per the settled law, the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses
regarding commission of offence is
sufficient for convicting a person but in
case where doubt is generated because of
testimony and circumstances of the case
regarding
trustworthiness
of
the
prosecution witnesses then right course
open is to have some independent
corroboration, which is missing in this
case. In this regard we are in agreement
with the finding so recorded by the trial
court.

15. Before parting with judgment, it
would be relevant to take note of fact that
we after careful scrutiny of the impugned
judgment discover no perversity in the
judgment of trial court. We are fully
conscious of fact that presumption of
innocence is available to the accused even
up to this appellate stage which got
strengthened by order of acquittal in
favour of accused by the trial court. Thus
the view taken by the trial court in
recording finding of acquittal is just and
reasonable. Even if other view is possible
it would not be proper to substitute our
own view in place of finding recorded by
the trial court. This approach is to be
avoided and the view as taken by the trial
court has got to be affirmed. This
rationale/principle has been enunciated in
detail in Bhadragiri Venketa Ravi Vs.
Pubic Prosecutor High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad 2013 (4) Supreme 450.

16. Similarly, in Kanhaiya Lal and
others Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013
SC 1940, Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed that while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal the court should keep in
view the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused as the same gets
fortified by his acquittal if the view taken
by the trial court is well grounded and
based on material on record.

17. In view of the discussion made
hereinabove, we see no infirmity latent or
patent in the judgment of acquittal
recorded by the trial court. We are,
accordingly, not inclined to interfere with
the judgment and the order of acquittal
recorded by the trial Judge in respect of
the
accused-respondents.
The
instant
appeal is liable to be dismissed. Leave to
appeal is thus refused.

18. Accordingly, the instant appeal is
dismissed.

19. Let a copy of this order be
certified to the court concerned.
----------

(2020)02ILR A48
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3293 of 2018

Najar Quraishi ...Petitioner (In Custody)
Versus
Superintendent, Distt. Jail, Muzaffarnagar
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, Sri Chandrakesh
Mishra