# State of U.P v. Dhirendra Kumar

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 1032
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-18
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 115 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-dhirendra-kumar-53592
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether it
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar
1033
can be granted to the State where the trial
court's acquittal is based on proper
appreciation
of
evidence
including
a
genuine suicide note exonerating the
accused? Whether State Government can
mechanically direct the Public Prosecutor
to file such an appeal without recording
satisfaction of substantial or compelling
reasons for interference with the order of
acquittal.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.
378(3)
-
Leave
to
appeal
against
acquittal - When to be granted - Scope
of appellate interference - Duty of State
in directing appeal - Double presumption
of
innocence
-
Compensation
for
vexatious prosecution.

Held:
Leave to appeal against acquittal- to be granted
only where the trial court's judgment is palpably
erroneous,
perverse,
or
manifestly
unsustainable- view taken by the trial court is
reasonable and supported by evidence- the High
Court should not interfere-merely because
another view is possible. [Paras 11-15, 25, 2931]

In the present case- the trial court rightly
appreciated the ocular and medical evidence,
and the suicide note (Exh. Ka-11) written by the
deceased - a student of M.Ed. - specifically
stated that she was committing suicide due to
"study stress" and exonerated her husband, inlaws, and parents from any responsibilityhandwriting was confirmed by FSL examinationprosecution failed to establish cruelty or dowry
demand soon before death-essential ingredient
of dowry death under s. 304-B IPC. [Paras 610, 20-22]

Appeal against acquittal-principle reiterated-
double presumption of innocence - firstly,
arising from the presumption of innocence at
trial- secondly, reinforced by the acquittalburden is on the State to demonstrate
substantial and compelling reasons to disturb
that finding. [Paras 28-29, 32-33]

Acquittal of the respondent was "honourable"-
founded on consistent evidence- suicide note
proved by the prosecution itself-appeal was
frivolous
and
vexatious-
Court,
therefore,
awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to
the
respondent-accused
for
wrongful
prosecution, to be paid by the State within 30
days. [Paras 34-35]

Leave
refused
-
Appeal
dismissed
-
Compensation of ₹2,00,000 directed to be paid
to the respondent. (E-14)

Case Law Cited

Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025
(131) ACC 302 (SC); Charan Singh @
Charanjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2023) 3 SCR 511 (SC); Ram Kumar v.
State of Rajasthan, 2009 (1) JT 197; State
of M.P. v. Sharad Goswami, (2021) 17 SCC
783; State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram,
(2012) 1 SCC 602; Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2
SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225; Sadhu Saran
Singh v. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357;
Basheera Begum v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020)
11 SCC 174; Kali Ram v. State of H.P.,
(1973) 2 SCC 808; Rajesh Prasad v. State
of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 - followed;
Baljinder Pal Kaur v. State of Punjab,
(2016) 1 SCC 671 - applied; Inspector
General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013)
1 SCC 598 - applied; Public Prosecutor v.
Mayandi, AIR 1933 Mad 230 - referred to;
Emperor v. Pursumal Germinal, AIR 1938
Sind 108 - referred to; State v. Ganga
Sahai, AIR 1953 All 211 - referred to;
State of U.P. v. Ram Ajorey, 1991 All LJ
669 - followed.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961; Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

List of Keywords
Criminal appeal; Leave to appeal against
acquittal;
Double
presumption
of
innocence; Scope of interference; Duty of
State; Mechanical filing of appeal; Dowry
death; Suicide note; Dying declaration;
Study
stress;
honourable
acquittal;
Compensation for wrongful prosecution.
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Arising From
Application for leave to appeal under Section
378(3)
Cr.P.C.
/
Section
419(3)
BNS

## Text

_Characters 0–39,747 of 52,139. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39747 for what follows._

1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relied on the Social Investigation Report
and MH Report, without analyzing the
older adult's case on its own. Similarly, the
Appellate Court has also endorsed the
order in appeal, without exercising the
powers it has under Section 101. So both
fail the legal scrutiny; they have failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in them."

32. In the judgment quoted here-inabove, Bombay High Court has rightly held
that the television, internet and socialmedia are having disastrous effects on the
impressionable minds of the adolescents
and resulting in loss of their innocence at a
very early and tender age.

33. Law is an evolving concept and
has to keep pace with time. This court has
no hesitation to hold that the nefarious
effects
of
the
visual
mediums
like
television, internet and social-media on
adolescents are not being controlled, nor it
appears that the government can control the
same, to prevent its deleterious effect on
the adolescents, due to the uncontrollable
nature of technologies involved. The
"Nirbhaya case" was an exception and not
a general rule and all juveniles cannot be
subjected and tried like adult without
proper consideration of the overall social
and psychological effects on their psyche.

34. In this case the victim and the
juvenile both are minors. They continued in
consensual physical relationship for about
an year and only after the victim became
pregnant their relationship was discovered.
The revisionist with the help of two adults
got her pregnancy aborted by administering
medicine. There is nothing on record to
indicate that the revisionist is a predator on
the prowl and is prone to repeating the
offence without any provocation. He never
indulged in any such or other offence
earlier. Maturity of his mind has not been
certified by the psychologist. Merely
because he committed a heinous crime he
cannot be put to par with an adult when his
social exposure was also found to be
deficient by the psychologist.

35. In view of above consideration the
impugned judgments and orders passed by
both the courts below are set aside.

36. Criminal Revision is allowed.

37. The revisionist is directed to be
tried as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice
Board in accordance with law.

38. Registrar (compliance) is directed
to communicate this order to the Juvenile
Justice Board, Kaushambi for necessary
compliance within three days.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 1032
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Government Appeal No. 115 of 2025

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Dhirendra Kumar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ashutosh Kumar Sand

Counsel for the Respondent:
Pranvesh, Saurabh Kesarwani

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertained leave to appeal against
acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether it
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar
1033
can be granted to the State where the trial
court's acquittal is based on proper
appreciation
of
evidence
including
a
genuine suicide note exonerating the
accused? Whether State Government can
mechanically direct the Public Prosecutor
to file such an appeal without recording
satisfaction of substantial or compelling
reasons for interference with the order of
acquittal.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.
378(3)
-
Leave
to
appeal
against
acquittal - When to be granted - Scope
of appellate interference - Duty of State
in directing appeal - Double presumption
of
innocence
-
Compensation
for
vexatious prosecution.

Held:
Leave to appeal against acquittal- to be granted
only where the trial court's judgment is palpably
erroneous,
perverse,
or
manifestly
unsustainable- view taken by the trial court is
reasonable and supported by evidence- the High
Court should not interfere-merely because
another view is possible. [Paras 11-15, 25, 2931]

In the present case- the trial court rightly
appreciated the ocular and medical evidence,
and the suicide note (Exh. Ka-11) written by the
deceased - a student of M.Ed. - specifically
stated that she was committing suicide due to
"study stress" and exonerated her husband, inlaws, and parents from any responsibilityhandwriting was confirmed by FSL examinationprosecution failed to establish cruelty or dowry
demand soon before death-essential ingredient
of dowry death under s. 304-B IPC. [Paras 610, 20-22]

Appeal against acquittal-principle reiterated-
double presumption of innocence - firstly,
arising from the presumption of innocence at
trial- secondly, reinforced by the acquittalburden is on the State to demonstrate
substantial and compelling reasons to disturb
that finding. [Paras 28-29, 32-33]

Acquittal of the respondent was "honourable"-
founded on consistent evidence- suicide note
proved by the prosecution itself-appeal was
frivolous
and
vexatious-
Court,
therefore,
awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to
the
respondent-accused
for
wrongful
prosecution, to be paid by the State within 30
days. [Paras 34-35]

Leave
refused
-
Appeal
dismissed
-
Compensation of ₹2,00,000 directed to be paid
to the respondent. (E-14)

Case Law Cited

Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025
(131) ACC 302 (SC); Charan Singh @
Charanjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2023) 3 SCR 511 (SC); Ram Kumar v.
State of Rajasthan, 2009 (1) JT 197; State
of M.P. v. Sharad Goswami, (2021) 17 SCC
783; State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram,
(2012) 1 SCC 602; Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2
SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225; Sadhu Saran
Singh v. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357;
Basheera Begum v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020)
11 SCC 174; Kali Ram v. State of H.P.,
(1973) 2 SCC 808; Rajesh Prasad v. State
of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 - followed;
Baljinder Pal Kaur v. State of Punjab,
(2016) 1 SCC 671 - applied; Inspector
General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013)
1 SCC 598 - applied; Public Prosecutor v.
Mayandi, AIR 1933 Mad 230 - referred to;
Emperor v. Pursumal Germinal, AIR 1938
Sind 108 - referred to; State v. Ganga
Sahai, AIR 1953 All 211 - referred to;
State of U.P. v. Ram Ajorey, 1991 All LJ
669 - followed.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961; Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

List of Keywords
Criminal appeal; Leave to appeal against
acquittal;
Double
presumption
of
innocence; Scope of interference; Duty of
State; Mechanical filing of appeal; Dowry
death; Suicide note; Dying declaration;
Study
stress;
honourable
acquittal;
Compensation for wrongful prosecution.
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Arising From
Application for leave to appeal under Section
378(3)
Cr.P.C.
/
Section
419(3)
BNSS,
challenging the judgment dated 4 July 2024 of
the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Bulandshahr, in Sessions Case No. 2649 of 2022
(State v. Dhirendra Kumar), arising out of Case
Crime
No.
210
of
2022,
Police
Station
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellant (State): Smt. Manju Thakur,
A.G.A.-I; Shri Ashutosh Kumar Sand.
For the Respondent: Shri Pranvesh and Shri
Saurabh Kesarwani, Advocates

(Delivered by Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.)

1. This application for leave has been
moved belatedly under Section 378(3)
Cr.P.C. by the State challenging the
judgment of acquittal dated 4th July, 2024
passed by the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge/F.T.C., Bulandshahr in Sessions
Case No.2649 of 2022 (State Vs. Dhirendra
Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.210
of 2022, Police Station- Sikandrabad,
District- Bulandshahar, whereby the trial
court has acquitted the accused/respondent
for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B,
504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.

2. It is contended by Smt. Manju
Thakur, learned A.G.A.-Ist appearing for
the State that the trial court has not
properly appreciated the evidence of
prosecution and decided the case only on
the basis of conjunctures and surmises; the
judicial mind has not been applied while
appreciating the testimonies of witnesses;
the prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable
doubt,
which
has
been
overlooked by the trial court; the trial court
has wrongly recorded the findings and
considered
the
improvements
and
contradictions
in
the
statements
of
witnesses as material discrepancies; the
trial court has ignored the testimonies of
witnesses, who have clearly proved the
unnatural death of deceased within seven
years of marriage in the matrimonial home,
for non-fulfilment of dowry demand; the
trial court has ignored the death of
deceased by hanging, registration of
prompt F.I.R. and collecting of sufficient
material by the Investigating Officer to
establish the role of accused in the matter
of dowry death. It is, therefore, stated that
the acquittal recorded by the trial court is
misconceived, not sustainable in the eyes of
law, therefore, leave is to be granted to the
State for adjudication of appeal on merit.

3. Sri Pranvesh and Sri Saurabh
Kesarwani, learned counsel for the opposite
party have stated that the learned trial court
has rightly appreciated the evidences, oral
and documentary on record and rightly
acquitted the accused. Learned counsel
have specifically drawn the attention of this
Court towards suicide note left by the
deceased, proved by the prosecution, being
document of prosecution. The State cannot
ignore the important document, wherein the
deceased has committed suicide due to
stress in studies and wrote in specific terms
that for the suicide, neither her parents nor
her in-laws shall be held responsible. This
suicide note has rightly been considered by
the trial court in the light of testimonies of
witnesses of fact, P.W.-1, Santosh Bihari
Kumar, P.W-2, Smt. Meena Devi and
P.W.-3, Deepak Kumar. The contradictions
in the testimonies of witnesses of fact are
material in nature, viz., the deceased was
stated to be two months pregnant at the
time of committing suicide, which is not
corroborated by the medical evidence. The
witnesses, who are mother and brothers of
deceased have not stated about the first
marriage of deceased and what happened to
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar
1035
that marriage, in their examination in chief,
but reflected from their cross-examination.
Moreover,
the
trial
court
has
also
considered the testimonies of witnesses of
fact that the deceased was under stress of
studies. It is, therefore, stated that the leave
cannot be granted as the accused, who is
already acquitted would be made to suffer
and there is no evidence against the
accused. The learned counsel has relied on
the case of Karan Singh Vs. State of
Haryana1
and
Charan
Singh
alias
Charanjeet
Singh
Vs.
State
of
Uttarakhand2.

4.
This
Court
has
taken
into
consideration the rival submissions made
by the parties and perused the record.

5. The brief conspectus of the case
shun unnecessary details is such that the
F.I.R. has been registered by Santosh
Bihari Kumar (informant, P.W.-1) against
accused Dhirendra Kumar, opposite party
at P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr
at
03:41
hours
on
07.03.2022,
got
registered as Case Crime No.210 of 2022
for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B,
316, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3,4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The context
of the written information reveals that the
informant is residing at District Gurgaon,
Haryana. His sister, Pinky Kumari was
married to Dhirendra Kumar son of Nand
Kishore Jaiswal, resident of Bakhtiyarpur,
Haqiqatpur, Patna, Bihar, on 12th July,
2021 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. On
7th March, 2022, he got a news that his
sister, who was residing at Mohalla,
Gayatri Nagar, SDM Colony, Sikandrabad
committed suicide. Dhirendra continuously
tortured his sister for dowry. His sister was
two months pregnant with Dhirendra
Kumar, but he disowned the child. He
refused to bear the expenses of education
and fooding of the deceased and threatened
her to kill. He also used to abuse her and
demanded extra dowry, due to which the
informant's sister has committed suicide.

6. The inquest on the death body was
carried out on 07.03.2022 between 18:00
hours to 23:20 hours, at the matrimonial
home, by Nayab Tehsildar, Sulabh Gupta
(P.W.-6), in presence of inquest witnesses
Santosh Bihari Kumar; Sabir Alam, Ram
Kumar Sharma, Akash Tibatiya and Rahul
Yadav. It is mentioned in the inquest report
that the deceased hanged herself from the
ceiling fan with a cloth. A suicide note has
also been recovered from the deceased. The
same has been sealed. The suicide note is
duly proved as Exhibit Ka-11, written in
blue ink containing date, signature and
phone numbers in red ink. The page used is
the page of notebook. Written in Hindi with
some words in english. The text of the
suicide note is reiterated below:-

"

07.03.2022

मै
Pinki
Jaiswal
M.ED
3rd
Semster
(D.S.B.)
Campus
Kumaun
University Nainitalकी छात्रा अपने ससुराल में study
stress की वजह से पूरी होशों हवास में आत्महत्या करने जा रही
हूाँ। इसकी भजम्प्वेदारी मैं खुद लेती हूं, मेरे आत्महत्या के पीछे ना मेरे
Husband धीरेन्द्र कुमार जयसवाल ना मेरे ससुराल के कोई
सदस्य भजम्प्वेदार है, और ना ही मेरे मााँ भपताजी या Family के
कोई सदस्य भजम्प्वेदार है। Pulis Sir से मेरी भवनती है भक वे मेरे
ससुराल वालों और मायके वाले को मेरी मौत के बाद भकसी को
परेशान न करें।

इस घर में मेरे मायके से भमला हुआ कुछ समान और
कपड़े गहने हैं भजसे रक में रख भदया गया है, उस समान को मेरे िाई
जी जो Delhi Gurgav में रहते हैं उनको सारा समान सौंप
भदया जायेगा मेरी इच्छा यही है क्योंभक शादी में ढ़ेर सोरा पैसे खचव
हुए थे मेरी लास्ट इच्छा यही है भक मेरे मरने के बाद मााँ भपताजी
टेंशन नहीं करेंगें।

Pinki Jaiswal.
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Husband Mo No.-7380414315

big brother-8929240771

Father Enlaw- 9934212869

DR
Hlaml big Mam (M.ed) 8954348345

मेरे Husband Maa G (Mother Inlaw
को अचानक tabiyt खराब होने पर Delhi गए हैं। "

7. The post mortem examination on
the death body of deceased has been carried
out by Dr. Harendra Singh (P.W.-5) at
Mortuary of District Hospital Bulandshahar
on 08.03.2022 started at 12:05 p.m. and
completed at 12:50 p.m. The only ante
mortem injury reported is "a ligature mark
of size 26 cm x 3 cm present on all around
the neck above thyroid cartilage with the
note of 4 cm right side of neck mark
obliquely place 5 cm below from left ear 2
cm below from right ear and 6 cm below
to chin on exploration underneath tissue
found white hand and hellenising hyoid
bone found intact." In respect to gential
organ, it is found that "utreus size 11cm x
10 cm large in shape. Non-gravida". The
cause of death is asphyxia due to ante
mortem hanging and time since death is
about three-fourth of the day.

8. The suicide note was recovered
from the deceased, the hand writing of the
suicide note had been compared from the
register of the deceased and also compared
from the hand writing of the accused in the
report of FSL team unit Bulandshahr.

9. After investigation, the charge sheet
has been submitted and Section 316 I.P.C.
has been dropped, as the deceased was not
found pregnant.

10. The prosecution has produced
three witnesses of fact, namely, P.W.-1
Santosh Bihari Kumar, brother of deceased
and first informant; P.W.-2 Smt. Meena
Devi, mother of deceased; and P.W.-3
Deepak Kumar, cousin brother of deceased.
The formal witnesses produced were
constable P.W.-4, Yogesh Kumar/the scribe
of chik F.I.R.; P.W.-5 Dr. Harendra Singh,
who
has
conducted
post
mortem
examination on the dead body of deceased
and prepared post mortem report; the Naib
Tehsildar, Sulabh Gupta, P.W.-6, who has
inspected the death body and prepared the
inquest report and other necessary papers
for sending the death body for post mortem
examination; P.W.-7, C.O., Suresh Kumar
has investigated the matter. The defence
has produced the defence witness D.W.-1,
Harpal Singh, the landlord of the house in
tenancy of accused and deceased, who also
resides near the tenanted house and usually
visit the house of accused and deceased.

10. The learned trial court has
acquitted the accused on appreciation of
evidence with following observation:-

(i) From the statement of P.W.-1
Santosh Bihari Kumar, P.W.-2 Meena Devi
and P.W.-3 Deepak Kumar, it has been
revealed that deceased died an unnatural
death within seven years of marriage, but it
is also observed that the deceased was
initially married to Ram Babu, a tailor at
Motihari, Bihar. There was no divorce case
or any other matrimonial case between
Ram Babu and deceased but a written
agreement was there. The marriage with
accused is stated to be second marriage
solemnized on 12th July, 2021 and
deceased committed suicide on 7th March,
2022.
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar
1037

(ii) The trial court did not find
any evidence from the ocular testimony or
witnesses of fact that there was any demand
of dowry. This observation of the trial court
was based on the testimonies of the
witnesses of fact that there was no specific
date and time of the demand and what was
demanded. It has also been inferred that the
witnesses were ignorant about the fact of
pregnancy of deceased, not corroborated as
per post mortem report and the statement of
Dr. Harendra Singh, P.W.-5. It is also
observed on this issue that the witnesses of
fact had stated that the deceased was
pursuing
her
M.Ed
from
Kumaun
University after completing her B.Ed from
Rudrapur and the expenses on study of
deceased was borne by the accused.

(iii) The learned trial court
thereafter considered the suicide note of the
deceased, which is duly proved by the
prosecution witnesses, particularly P.W.-7,
Investigating officer, Suresh Kumar. This
suicide note was found to be in the hand
writing of the deceased in the report of
FSL, which further proved that the suicide
note is not in the hand writing of the
accused. This suicide note is proved as
Exhibit Ka-11. The register from which the
hand writing was compared was of
deceased and not of accused as the
specimen hand writing of the accused was
not matched from the suicide note by the
prosecution as Exhibit ka-12 & 13.

(iv) The learned trial court
considered the suicide note in view of
Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act,
1872, and gave full credence to it.

(v). The trial court further found
from the statement of P.W.-1, Santosh
Bihari Kumar that on 6th March, 2022, he
was with his deceased sister but left in the
morning of 7th March, 2022. He has also
stated in his testimony that accused and his
mother went to Delhi.

(vi). The learned trial court has
considered
that
the
four
important
ingredients to hold accused guilty in dowry
death case laid down in the case of Ram
Kamar Vs. State of Rajasthan3 have not
been proved by the prosecution except that
the death of a bride is within seven years of
marriage and was an unnatural death. No
other ingredient that the bride was
subjected to cruelty soon before her death
and the cruelty was with respect to the
demand of dowry have not been proved.

11. 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 Goswami4; State of Rajasthan
Vs. Shera Ram5, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
Vs. State of Maharastra6.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of
Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of
Gujarat7 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
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

13. The Supreme Court in the case of
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P.8 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.

14. The Supreme Court in the case
Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim9 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.

15. The Supreme Court in the case of
Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P.10 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."

16. This
Court
has
taken
into
consideration the statements of witnesses of
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar
1039
fact, namely, Santosh Bihari Kumar, Smt.
Meena Devi and Sri Deepak Kumar in the
light of statements of formal witnesses,
namely, Constable Yogesh Kumar, Dr.
Harendra Singh, Nayab Tehsildar, Sulabh
Gupta, C.O. Suresh Kumar and the
documents proved by these witnesses as
well as exhibited during the trial.

17. P.W.-1, Santosh Bihari Kumar, in
his cross-examination stated that the
marriage of his deceased sister and accused
took place on 12th July, 2021. His sister
committed suicide by hanging on 7th
March, 2022. Accused used to torture his
sister, who was two months pregnant and
accused has disowned the child. He also
torture her in refusing to fulfil the demand
of deceased to continue with her study. Did
not provide her food. In his further
examination, he stated that the expenses for
the studies of his sister was not borne by
him. This witness is not trustworthy on this
point because the deceased was studying. It
is not the case that deceased was earning.
Then it is inferred that the accused was
funding the studies of deceased. Moreover,
a day before committing of suicide by the
deceased, he was with the deceased and
further stated that in the morning, the
accused along with his mother left for
Delhi. Thus, the requirement of atrocity
and cruelty committed on the bride soon
before the death is not proved as the
informant himself was present soon before
the death with the deceased.

18. P.W.-5, Smt. Meena Devi has
stated that she has spent Rs.3,25,000/-
during the marriage of deceased with
accused and also gifted a laptop to her
daughter. No incident of atrocity for
demand of dowry by the accused is
mentioned by this witness. This witness as
well as P.W.-1 Santosh Bihari Kumar have
specifically stated about the pregnancy of
deceased, which was found to be a false
ground of alleged torture by accused, as the
post
mortem
falsifies
the
claim
of
pregnancy. The testimony of this witness
also not sufficient to establish the crime of
dowry death.

19. Deepak Kumar, P.W.-3, who has
stated in his testimony that accused
committed atrocities on the deceased for
demand of dowry is a resident of Bihar and
was at Bihar at the time of incident. He has
also given vague statement about the
demand of dowry; though stated that on 6th
March, 2022 he had a conversation with
accused on phone when the accused
intimated him that he will kill his sister and
also get him killed. This conversation is not
substantiated by any corroborated evidence.

20. The suicide note which is recorded
as dying declaration, proved by the
prosecution is an important piece of
evidence, which speaks entirely a different
story altogether. P.W. -1 Santosh Bihari
Kumar, is not conversant about the contents
of suicide note though admitted its
recovery.

21.
The
suicide
note
reiterated,
hereinabove, is written on a register page,
reveals that the deceased in the opening
words has mentioned that she is pursuing
her M.Ed third Semester from Kumanu
University, Nainital and committing suicide
due to study stress. It is the statement of
witnesses of fact that the deceased was a
very good student and was under the stress
of study. It is further mentioned in the
suicide note that she herself is responsible
for the suicide and further wrote that her
husband- Dhirendra Kumar Jaiswal, her inlaws are not responsible for her death by
suicide. She further wrote that her mother,
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
father and family members are also not
responsible for her death. In the suicide
note, she further prayed the police
personnel not to harass her in-laws and
parents for the said suicide. Lastly, she has
mentioned that she has some gold and
clothes kept in the trunk, which shall be
given to her brother, who resides at
Gurgaon, because he has spent money in
the marriage of deceased. The last sentence
in the suicide note is that her husband had
taken the mother-in-law to Delhi due to her
ill health.

22. As such, considering the entire
gamut of facts in the light of evidence, this
Court is of the view that there is no ground
to grant leave to the State under Section
378(3)
Cr.P.C./419(3)
B.N.S.S.
The
application for leave to appeal deserves to
be dismissed.

23. Before parting with, we would be
like to stress upon the legal principles
applicable while dealing with appeal in
case of acquittal provided under Section
378 Cr.P.C./419 BNSS and the extent of
interference by the appellate Court when
the acquittal is recorded by the trial court.
We would like to elaborate it at some
length, as we have noticed in this case, the
cursorily way in which the government
appeal is being filed, without considering
the judgment, the evidence on the trial
court record, the appreciation of evidence
in the judgment and sustainability of
application for leave.

24. The legislature while legislating
the provision of Section 378 Cr.P.C. (419
B.N.S.S.) makes it an exception and not as
a rule as provided against conviction.
Therefore, purposefully incorporated a
word 'direct' in sub-section (1)(a), (1)(b) of
Section 378 Cr.P.C. to exercise this power
to 'direct', the public prosecutor to file an
appeal against acquittal, must be used
sparingly and with circumspection. This
shows
that
the
direction
cannot
be
exercised without application of mind and
in cursorily fashion. Section 378 Cr.P.C. is
reiterated underneath:-

"378.
Appeal
in
case
of
acquittal.-(1) Save as otherwise provided
in sub-section (2), and subject to the
provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),-

(a) the District Magistrate may,
in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal to the Court of Session
from an order of acquittal passed by a
Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and
non-bailable offence;

(b) the State Government may, in
any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal to the High Court from
an original or appellate order of acquittal
passed by any Court other than a High
Court [not being an order under clause (a )
or an order of acquittal passed by the
Court of Session in revision.

(2 ) If such an order of acquittal
is passed in any case in which the offence
has been investigated by the Delhi Special
Police Establishment constituted under the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency
empowered to make investigation into an
offence under any Central Act other than
this Code, the Central Government may,
subject to the provisions of sub-section (3 ),
also direct the Public Prosecutor to present
an appeal-

(a) to the Court of Session, from
an order of acquittal passed by a
Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and
non-bailable offence;
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar
1041

(b) to the High Court from an
original or appellate order of an acquittal
passed by any Court other than a High
Court [not being an order under clause (a
)] or an order of acquittal passed by the
Court of Session in revision.

(3 ) No appeal to the High Court
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2 )
shall be entertained except with the leave
of the High Court.

(4 ) If such an order of acquittal
is passed in any case instituted upon
complaint and the High Court, on an
application made to it by the complainant
in this behalf, grants special leave to
appeal from the order of acquittal, the
complainant may present such an appeal to
the High Court.

(5 ) No application under subsection (4 ) for the grant of special leave to
appeal from an order of acquittal shall be
entertained by the High Court after the
expiry
of
six
months,
where
the
complainant is a public servant, and sixty
days in every other case, computed from
the date of that order of acquittal.

(6 ) If, in any case, the
application under sub-section (4 ) for the
grant of special leave to appeal from an
order of acquittal is refused, no appeal
from that order of acquittal shall lie under
sub-section (1 ) or under sub-section (2 )."

25. Scope of appeal under Section
378 Cr.P.C.

It is a settled principle of law that
while deciding an appeal against the
judgment of acquittal, the appellate court
has the power to re-appreciate the evidence
on record, but when two views are
reasonably possible, based on evidence, the
view that favours the accused should be
adopted.

26.
In
the
present
case,
the
prosecution, since the stage of investigation
has gathered the material, which evince that
the accused is not guilty, because on the
one hand, the Investigating Officer has
relied on the suicide note and on the other
hand has recorded the statements of
witnesses of fact, who themselves are
shaky witnesses. The Investigating Officer
has not ventured into the first marriage of
deceased solemnized in the year 2009, and
married second time with the accused, as
the case is of abetment to suicide and
weighing of all the circumstances is
essential. Moreover, the reading of suicide
note and the diary writing in the register
proved before the Court does not give
impetus to the guilt of the accused, but the
investigating officer has submitted chargesheet. During the trial, the trial Judge has
found that the witnesses of fact cannot be
relied upon, non-trustworthy on the point of
demand of dowry and cruelty soon before
the death for the demand of said dowry and
on considering the suicide note, proved by
the prosecution, as dying declaration,
acquitted the accused. To the utter dismay,
the State has challenged the judgment of
acquittal.

27. In such circumstances, how the
State Government has directed the public
prosecutor to file an appeal in the case.

28. In the celebrated judgment of
Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and
another11 the Supreme Court in paragraphs
21 to 30 dealt with the principles of law
enunciated through the dictums, right from
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
privy counsel to the present day. The said
paragraphs are reiterated underneath:-

"21. Before proceeding further, it
would be useful to review the approach to
be adopted while deciding an appeal
against acquittal by the trial court as well
as by the High Court. Section 378 CrPC
deals with appeals in case of acquittal. In
one of the earliest cases on the powers of
the High Court in dealing with an appeal
against an order of acquittal the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo
Swarup v. King Emperor [Sheo Swarup v.
King Emperor, 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42 :
(1933-34) 61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227
(2)] considered the provisions relating to
the power of an appellate court in dealing
with an appeal against an order of
acquittal and observed as under: (SCC
OnLine PC)

"16. It cannot, however, be
forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a
double presumption in favour of the
accused.
Firstly,
the
presumption
of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental
principle
of
criminal
jurisprudence that every person should be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved to be guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured
an acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is certainly not weakened but
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.

"... But in exercising the power
conferred by the Code and before reaching
its conclusions upon fact, the High Court
should and will always give proper weight
and consideration to such matters as: (1)
the views of the trial Judge as to the
credibility of the witnesses; (2) the
presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused, a presumption certainly not
weakened by the fact that he has been
acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the
accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4)
the slowness of an appellate court in
disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a
Judge who had the advantage of seeing the
witnesses. To state this, however, is only to
say that the High Court in its conduct of the
appeal should and will act in accordance
with rules and principles well known and
recognised
in
the
administration
of
justice."

It was stated that the appellate
court has full powers to review and to
reverse the acquittal.

22. In Atley v. State of U.P.
[Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 :
1955 Cri LJ 1653] , the approach of the
appellate
court
while
considering
a
judgment of acquittal was discussed and it
was observed that unless the appellate
court comes to the conclusion that the
judgment of the acquittal was perverse, it
could not set aside the same. To a similar
effect are the following observations of this
Court speaking through Subba Rao, J. (as
his Lordship then was) in Sanwat Singh v.
State of Rajasthan [Sanwat Singh v. State
of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715 : (1961) 1
Cri LJ 766] : (Sanwat Singh case [Sanwat
Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC
715 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 766] , AIR pp. 71920, para 9)

"9. The foregoing discussion
yields the following results: (1) an
appellate court has full power to review the
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar
1043
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded; (2) the principles laid down in
Sheo Swarup [Sheo Swarup v. King
Emperor, 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42 :
(1933-34) 61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227
(2)] afford a correct guide for the appellate
court's approach to a case in disposing of
such an appeal; and (3) the different
phraseology used in the judgments of this
Court, such as, (i) "substantial and
compelling reasons", (ii) "good and
sufficiently cogent reasons", and (iii)
"strong reasons" are not intended to
curtail
the
undoubted
power of
an
appellate court in an appeal against
acquittal to review the entire evidence and
to come to its own conclusion; but in doing
so it should not only consider every matter
on record having a bearing on the
questions of fact and the reasons given by
the court below in support of its order of
acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on
those facts, but should also express those
reasons in its judgment, which lead it to
hold that the acquittal was not justified."

The need for the aforesaid
observations
arose
on
account
of
observations of the majority in Aher Raja
Khima v. State of Saurashtra [Aher Raja
Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956
SC 217 : 1956 Cri LJ 426] which stated
that for the High Court to take a different
view on the evidence "there must also be
substantial and compelling reasons for
holding that the trial court was wrong".

23. M.G. Agarwal v. State of
Maharashtra [M.G. Agarwal v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 : (1963) 1
Cri LJ 235] is the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking
through
Gajendragadkar,
J.
(as
his
Lordship then was). This Court observed
that the approach of the High Court
(appellate court) in dealing with an appeal
against acquittal ought to be cautious
because the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused "is not certainly
weakened by the fact that he has been
acquitted at his trial".

24. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra [Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2
SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] , Krishna
Iyer, J., observed as follows: (SCC p. 799,
para 6)

"6.
...
In
short,
our
jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed
innocence must be moderated by the
pragmatic need to make criminal justice
potent and realistic. A balance has to be
struck between chasing chance possibilities
as good enough to set the delinquent free
and chopping the logic of preponderant
probability to punish marginal innocents."

25.
This
Court
in
Ramesh
Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat
[Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 972] , spoke about the approach of
the appellate court while considering an
appeal against an order acquitting the
accused and stated as follows: (SCC p.
229, para 7)

"7. ...