# State of U.P v. Iqbal Ansari

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 150
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-16
- **Case number:** U/S 378CR.P.C. No. 41 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-iqbal-ansari-46225
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law
- Appeal against
acquital
-
The
Code
of
criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 378(3) - grant
of leave to appeal - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A - Husband or
relative
of
husband
of
a
woman
subjecting her to cruelty, Sections 304-B
- Dowry death - Dowry prohibition
Act,1961 - Section 3/4 .

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
113-B - Presumption as to dowry death -
The prosecution must at first establish
the
existence
of
the
necessary
ingredients for constituting an offence
under Section 304B, IPC - Once these
ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable
presumption
of
causality,
provided
under
Section
113B,
Evidence
Act
operates against the accused.(Para - 13)

Marriage
of
deceased
solemnized
with
accused/respondent - 1-1/2 years ahead of
incident
-
accused/respondent
used
to
demand dowry - tortured and harassed
deceased for non fulfillment of dowry - left
deceased
outside
the
house
of
the
complainant (brother of the deceased) in an
unconscious state - complainant came out to
see the deceased - found dead - Trial Court
conclusion - major contradictions in the
statements of the witnesses of facts -
Prosecution
could
not
establish
charges
framed against the accused/respondent -
acquitted the accused/respondent - Stateappellant preferred the present appeal.

HELD:-No factual or legal error in the
appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court .
Material contradiction in the statements of the
witnesses of facts, who are the close relatives
of the deceased . Neither of them remained
stable in their cross-examinations nor they
supported the prosecution version in their
cross-examinations. View taken by the trial
Court is a possible view. Trial Court has given
valid, cogent, convincing and satisfactory
reasons while passing the impugned judgment
and order. (Para -15)
10 All. State of U.P. Vs. Iqbal Ansari
151
Application
seeking
leave
to
appeal
rejected & appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Satbir Singh Vs St. of Har., (2021) 6 SCC

## Text

150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
imposed upon him so as to discourage such
irresponsible allegations being made that
deflect the smooth course of justice.

12. In the result, this application fails
and is dismissed with costs in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- payable by the applicant to the
opposite party. The costs shall be remitted
in the account of the opposite party within
a month by the applicant through an
appropriate instrument, bank transfer or
electronic transfer. In the event, costs are
not paid within a month, it shall be the duty
of the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar to
ascertain the fact, whether costs have been
paid by the applicant to the opposite, and if
not, he will immediately recover the sum of
money due in costs as arrears of land
revenue from the applicant and remit the
same to the opposite party in account.

13. Let this order be communicated to
the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Gautam Budh Nagar concerned
through the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gautam Budh Nagar and to the Collector,
Gautam Budh Nagar by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2021)10ILR A150
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

U/S 378CR.P.C. No. 41 of 2021

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Iqbal Ansari ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Arunendra, AGA
Counsel for the Respondent:

(A) Criminal Law
- Appeal against
acquital
-
The
Code
of
criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 378(3) - grant
of leave to appeal - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A - Husband or
relative
of
husband
of
a
woman
subjecting her to cruelty, Sections 304-B
- Dowry death - Dowry prohibition
Act,1961 - Section 3/4 .

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
113-B - Presumption as to dowry death -
The prosecution must at first establish
the
existence
of
the
necessary
ingredients for constituting an offence
under Section 304B, IPC - Once these
ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable
presumption
of
causality,
provided
under
Section
113B,
Evidence
Act
operates against the accused.(Para - 13)

Marriage
of
deceased
solemnized
with
accused/respondent - 1-1/2 years ahead of
incident
-
accused/respondent
used
to
demand dowry - tortured and harassed
deceased for non fulfillment of dowry - left
deceased
outside
the
house
of
the
complainant (brother of the deceased) in an
unconscious state - complainant came out to
see the deceased - found dead - Trial Court
conclusion - major contradictions in the
statements of the witnesses of facts -
Prosecution
could
not
establish
charges
framed against the accused/respondent -
acquitted the accused/respondent - Stateappellant preferred the present appeal.

HELD:-No factual or legal error in the
appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court .
Material contradiction in the statements of the
witnesses of facts, who are the close relatives
of the deceased . Neither of them remained
stable in their cross-examinations nor they
supported the prosecution version in their
cross-examinations. View taken by the trial
Court is a possible view. Trial Court has given
valid, cogent, convincing and satisfactory
reasons while passing the impugned judgment
and order. (Para -15)
10 All. State of U.P. Vs. Iqbal Ansari
151
Application
seeking
leave
to
appeal
rejected & appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Satbir Singh Vs St. of Har., (2021) 6 SCC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj
Yadav, J.)

1. This appeal alongwith application
under Section 378(3) of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
(in
short
'Cr.P.C.')
has
been
filed
by
the
State/appellant with the prayer that leave to
appeal
may
be
granted
against
the
judgment and order dated 03.12.2020
passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Room No. 4/Special Judge, E.C. Act,
Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 1363 of
2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of
2007, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.')
and Section 3/4 of The Dowry Prohibition
Act (in short "D.P. Act"), Police Station
Thakurganj, District Lucknow, whereby the
trial
Court
acquitted
the
accused
respondent.

2. Heard Sri Arunendra, learned
Additional Government Advocate (in short
'A.G.A.') for the State appellant, perused
the impugned judgment and order and the
record of the trial Court.

3. A First Information Report (in
short "F.I.R.") was registered on the basis
of a written report presented by Mohd.
Salim (brother of the decased -Reshma) on
01.06.2007. In the report, it was stated that
marriage of his sister Reshma was
solemnized with Iqbal Ansari 1-1/2 years
ahead. After marriage, she used to live in
her matrimonial home alongwith other
family members. After two-three months,
Iqbal Ansari, his mother, father and sister
started demanding Rs. One Lac as dowry.
They
all
started
torturing
her.
He
(complainant) tried to placate Iqbal 2-3
times that he is not in a position to give
more dowry. On 01.06.2007 at about 12
O'clock, Iqbal left Reshma outside the
house of the complainant in an unconscious
state. When the complainant opened the
door, he found his sister lying there and she
was dead.

4. After investigation, charge sheet
was
submitted
only
against
Iqbal
Ansari/accused-respondent under Sections
498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.
Act.
The
concerned
Magistrate
took
cognizance and committed the case to the
Sessions Court. The charges were framed
against the accused/respondent under the
aforesaid sections and also Section 302 IPC
in alternate. He denied the charges and
claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the charges
framed against the accused/respondent, the
prosecution examined Dr Neeraj Shekhar
as P.W. 1, Mohd. Salim (complainant)-
P.W. 2, Smt. Suraiya Begum (mother of the
deceased)- P.W. 3, Smt. Nagma Bano
(sister of the deceased)-P.W. 4, Head
Constable Shiv Prasad-P.W. 5, Mohd.
Nasim (brother of the deceased)-P.W. 6,
Mohd. Wasim (brother of the deceased)-
P.W. 7, Sri Chandra Shekhar-P.W. 8, Sri
Ram Nayan Singh (first Investigating
Officer)-P.W. 9 and Sri Chiranjiv Nath
Sinha (Second Investigating Officer)- P.W.
10. Documentary evidence Exhibit Ka-1 to
Ka-11 were proved.

6.

The
statement
of
the
accused/respondent was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the
charges and stated that F.I.R. has been lodged
falsely. The witnesses have deposed falsely
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
due to enmity and he is innocent. In the
defence the accused/respondent examined
three witnesses-Asaf Ali Ansari-D.W-1,
Furkan Ali-D.W. 2 and Mohd. Ahmad
Ansari-D.W. 3. Thereafter, the Trial Court
after hearing the arguments of both the sides
and analyzing the evidence available on
record came to the conclusion that there are
major contradictions in the statements of the
witnesses of facts. The prosecution could not
establish the charges framed against the
accused/respondent
and
acquitted
the
accused. Being aggrieved of acquittal of the
accused/respondent, the State-appellant has
preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned A.G.A has challenged the
impugned judgment and order by arguing
that learned Trial Court has wrongly
acquitted the accused/respondent giving
benefit of doubt. Learned Trial Court has not
considered the point that deceased died in her
matrimonial home within seven years of her
marriage as an unnatural death. There are
specific allegations in the F.I.R. as well as in
the
statements
of
the
witnesses
that
accused/respondent demanded dowry and the
deceased was tortured for non-fulfilment of
dowry. Learned A.G.A. further argued that
the Trial Court has not considered that as per
Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
presumption should be raised against the
accused/respondent
and
the
accused/respondent has not given any
explanation to rebut the presumption so
raised and has not explained under what
circumstances ante-mortem injuries were
caused on the body of the deceased. Hence,
the impugned judgment and order should be
set aside and the accused be acquitted.

8. Considered the submissions raised by
learned A.G.A., perused the impugned
judgment and order and the record of the trial
Court.

9. Before moving forward, it appears
appropriate to have a look at Section 304-B
I.P.C. and Section 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 304-B IPC reads as
under:-

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

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

(2) Whoever commits dowry death
shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven
years
but
which
may
extend
to
imprisonment for life."

Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act, 1872 reads as under:-

"113-B. Presumption as to dowry
death.--When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her
death such woman has been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for, or
in connection with, any demand for dowry,
the Court shall presume that such person
had caused the dowry death. Explanation.--
For the purposes of this section, ''dowry
death' shall have the same meaning as in
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860)."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Maya Devi and Another Versus State of
10 All. State of U.P. Vs. Iqbal Ansari
153
Haryana (2015) 17 Supreme Court Cases
405 has laid down as under:-

In order to convict an accused for
the offence punishable under Section 304B
IPC, the following essentials must be
satisfied:

(i) the death of a woman must
have been caused by burns or bodily injury
or
otherwise
than
under
normal
circumstances;

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

(iii) soon before her death, the
woman must have been subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or any
relatives of her husband;

(iv) such cruelty or harassment
must be for, or in connection with, demand
for dowry.

When the above ingredients are
established by reliable and acceptable
evidence, such death shall be called dowry
death and such husband or his relatives
shall be deemed to have caused her death. If
the
abovementioned
ingredients
are
attracted in view of the special provision, the
court shall presume and it shall record such
fact as proved unless and until it is
disproved by the accused. However, it is
open to the accused to adduce such evidence
for disproving such conclusive presumption
as the burden is unmistakably on him to do
so and he can discharge such burden by
getting
an
answer
through
crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses or
by adducing evidence on the defence side."

10. Now, we have to analyze the
present case on the touch stone of above
ingredients of Section 304-B IPC.

11. The first ingredient is death of a
woman must have been caused by burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under
normal circumstances. In the present
matter, in the F.I.R. it was mentioned that
the accused/respondent left the deceased
outside the house of the complainant in an
unconscious state. When the complainant
came out to see the deceased, he found her
dead. In this regard, the statement of P.W.
1-Dr Neeraj Shekhar, who conducted the
autopsy on the cadaver, is important. In his
opinion, the death of the deceased occurred
due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of
ruptured fallopian tube on right side. As per
norms, autopsy was conducted by a panel
of two doctors. P.W.1 has also stated that
another doctor was also of the opinion that
death was caused due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of ruptured fallopian
tube on right side. In the post-mortem
report, it has also been mentioned that
"Right fallopian tube ruptured, whole
uterus, both ovary and both fallopian
tubes preserved in formalin and sent to
KGMU Pathology for Histopathological
examination". P.W. 1 has stated that no
mark of injury was found on the external or
internal part of the body of deceased. This
medical witness did not say that the death
was unnatural. This witness has also stated
that he did not see 'histopathological
examination report' of the deceased, so he
cannot say conclusively that death was
natural.
'Histopathological-examinationreport' of Post Graduate Department of
Pathology,
King
George's
Medical
University, Lucknow is on record as Paper
No. 33/2. This report is as under:-

"HISTOPATHOLOGICAL
EXAMINATION REPORT

GROSS:-

An opened up uterus, cervix and
bilateral adenexa measuring 6x5x3.5 cms
received. Outer surface is smooth. Cut
surface shows a slit like uterine cavity.
Posterior wall thickness is 1.5 cm.
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Right
adenexa
measuring
4x2.5x2 cm received. Outer surface is
smooth. Cuts soft. Cut surface shows one
cyst measuring 1 cm and filled with
gelatinous material.

Left adenexa measuring 3x2.5x1
cms received. Outer surface is smooth.
Cuts soft. Cut surface shows corpus
albican and hemorrhage.

MICROSCOPIC:-

*Uterus:
3091-shows
normal
histology of uterus. There is no evidence
of villi or haemorrhagic area.

*Cervix:3092-
shows
normal
cervical histology.

*Right ovary :3093- Corpus
luteal cyst shows normal histology of
ovary.

*Left ovary: 3094-Corpus luteal
cyst-Normal histology of ovary."

11. From the perusal and conjoint
analysis of this report, statement of P.W. 1
and post mortem report, it comes to surface
that death of deceased was not unnatural
but she died due to rupture of fallopian
tube. Thus, the ingredients of Section 304B IPC is not fulfilled.

12. Now comes second ingredient,
which requires, the death of the deceased
must have occurred within seven years of
her marriage. On this point, there is no
dispute about the version of the F.I.R.,
wherein it has been mentioned that
marriage of the deceased was solemnized
with accused/respondent 1-1/2 years ahead
of the incident. Hence, this ingredient is
fulfilled.

13. Now comes third ingredient,
which requires that soon before her death, a
woman must have been subjected to cruelty
and harassment by her husband and any
relative of her husband and the fourth
requirement is that such cruelty and
harassment must be in connection with a
demand of dowry. In the F.I.R., it has been
mentioned that accused respondent used to
demand dowry and he tortured and
harassed the deceased for non fulfillment of
dowry. The complainant (brother of the
deceased) in his examination in chief has
supported the version of F.I.R. but in crossexamination he has stated that when the
marriage of the deceased was solemnized
with accused/respondent, at that time, he
was not in India. He also admitted that
Reshma and Iqbal got married on their own
sweet will and they solemnized "Nikaah" at
Nadwa College and he was not present in
the marriage. His sister told him about the
'Nikaah' after one month of her marriage. In
his cross-examination he has also accepted
that the dead body of his deceased sister
was brought to his house by a vehicle from
Trauma Centre. The accused respondent
Iqbal came to his house and remained there
for 10 minutes and all the family members
were present there. The mother of the
deceased has been examined as P.W. 3. In
examination-in-chief, she has stated that
her daughter solemnized marriage with
Iqbal in Court. Thereafter, when she came
to know about the marriage, they got
performed their "Nikaah" and also gave
dowry. She has also stated that Iqbal used
to torture her daughter for Rs. One Lac and
he left her daughter outside her house. His
son Salim brought her daughter inside and
went to call the Doctor and when Doctor
came and examined the deceased, he
declared her dead. This witness also in her
cross examination has stated her deceased
daughter used to come to her house about
every day alongwith Iqbal and they were
happy. They never complained anything on
the date when her daughter died. She was
admitted in the medical college or not, she
did not know. Perusal of the statement of
10 All. State of U.P. Vs. Iqbal Ansari
155
this witness shows that she has given a
contradictory statement and in crossexamination
has
not
supported
the
prosecution version about the demand of
dowry and torture for non fulfillment of
dowry.

12. P.W. 4- Smt. Nagma Bano, who is
sister of the deceased has stated that on
01.06.2007 when her brother went to the
house of her deceased sister, he found that
she was seriously ill. Upon it, her brother
and sister in law took her to the hospital
and her sister died there in the hospital.
Thereafter, dead body was brought to home
by her brother and sister in law. She has
also stated that when dead body was being
brought to the house, Iqbal left from the
way. Thereafter he never came. In the
cross-examination, this witness has stated
that her sister Reshma used to live happily
with Iqbal in a rented house. They have no
complaint about each other. This witness
has also not supported the prosecution
version about the demand of dowry and
torture. In similar way, P.W. 6-Mohd.
Nasim and P.W., 7-Mohd. Wasim (brothers
of the deceased) have given contradictory
statements in their cross-examinations.
Further more, all the three defencewitnesses have stated that deceased and
accused/respondent Iqbal used to live
happily and deceased died of sudden
illness. The evidence of these witnesses of
facts, who are the close relatives of the
deceased have not established that the
deceased was tortured for demand of dowry
and she was subjected to cruelty soon
before her death. Hence, 3rd and 4th
ingredients are also not established by the
prosecution. It is a burden of the
prosecution to establish all these four
ingredients/requirements of Section 304-B
IPC by a reliable evidence. When these
ingredients are established or proved, only
then the presumption of dowry death is
raised against the accused.

13. In the case of Satbir Singh
Versus State of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as
under:-

"The prosecution must at first
establish the existence of the necessary
ingredients for constituting an offence
under Section 304B, IPC. Once these
ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable
presumption of causality, provided under
Section 113B, Evidence Act operates
against the accused."

14. The argument of learned A.G.A.
that the trial Court must have raised the
presumption against the accused is baseless
as prosecution could not establish the
ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC, which
is the requirement before raising the
presumption under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872.

15. Hence, in the light of the above
analysis and discussion, we do not find any
factual or legal error in the appreciation of
evidence by the Trial Court while passing
the impugned judgment and order. There
are material contradiction in the statements
of the witnesses of facts, who are the close
relatives of the deceased. Neither of them
remained stable in their cross-examinations
nor they supported the prosecution version
in their cross-examinations. The view taken
by the trial Court is a possible view. The
trial Court has given valid, cogent,
convincing and satisfactory reasons while
passing the impugned judgment and order.

16. We therefore, do not consider it to
be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to
the appellant. The application seeking leave
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to appeal is, accordingly rejected and the
appeal is also dismissed.
----------
(2021)10ILR A156
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 4035 of 2021

Mata Bheekh Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Virendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 307,504,506quashing of criminal proceedings-trial
concluded-appeal
against
convictionappeal allowed-parties compromise on
their
own
without
any
coercion
or
compulsion and they had buried their
differences-offences are purely personal,
Thus quashing would not over-ride public
interest-no
untoward
incident
has
occurred after the alleged assault took
place long time ago in the heat of
moment.(Para 1 to 10)

B. The extraordinary power bestowed
upon the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can
be invoked beyond metes and bounds of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, such
powers being of wide amplitude, ought to
be exercised carefully and in the context
of quashing criminal proceedings bearing
in mind (i) Nature and effect of the
offence
on
the
conscience
of
the
society(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any
(iii) Voluntary nature of compromise
between the accused and the victim (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to
and after the occurrence of the purported
offence and other relevant considerations.
(Para 5)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Gopal & anr .Vs St. of M.P. CRLA No.
1489 of 2012

2. Krishnapa & ors. Vs St. of Karn. CRLA No.
1488 of 2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs.
Sangeeta Chandra, J.)

(1) This petition has been filed with
the following main prayer:-

"(1) For the facts, reasons and
circumstances
as
stated
in
the
accompanying
affidavit,
it
is
most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to quash the
proceedings of criminal case at Trial
No.292/2009 arising out of Case Crime
No.335A/2007, under Sections 307/504/506
IPC, Police Station Sareni, District Rae
Bareli,
pending
before
the
learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Rae
Bareli,
on
the
basis
of
settlement/compromise executed in between
the parties, as contained in Annexure No.7
in the interest of justice."

(2) It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
opposite party no.2 had lodged an F.I.R. on
23.08.2007. The petitioners had also lodged
an F.I.R.
registered
as
Case
Crime
No.335/2007. A compromise has occurred
between the parties. The true copy of the
compromise
has
been
filed
through
supplementary affidavit which has been
taken on record today.