# State of U.P v. Lallan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 294
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-04
- **Case number:** Govt. Appeal No. 1000636 of 2006
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-lallan-ors-48315
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 378 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A, 304-B &
201 & Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Section
3/4-challenge
to-acquittaldeceased died an unnatural death in her
matrimonial home-she committed suicide
by hanging-she was suffering from 'fits of
unconciousness'-father of the deceased
PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that
he incurred all expenditure of treatment
till she was alive-demand of passion
motorcycle by in-laws is false, at that
relevant time Passion motorcycle was not
launched in the market, to prove the same
letter of the concerned Agency was filedMoreso, the incident did not occur within
seven years of the marriage of the
deceased, but after seven years-accused
not only proved that the marriage was
solemnized before 7 years by producing
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Lallan & Ors.
295
marriage card but also prescription of the
doctor that the deceased was mentally ill
and the same was corroborated by PW-1To hold guilty the person accused of
offence u/s 304-B it must be proved that
the death of woman was caused by an
unnatural death within seven years of
marriage and soon before her death, she
was
subjected
to
cruelty

in
her
matrimonial home in connection with any
demand of dowry-Thus, the ingredients
required
u/s
304-B
have
not
been
established as to raise the presumption
u/s 113-B of Indian Evidence Act against
the appellants.(Para 1 to 8)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
than long clauses of penal provisions,
containing
complex
exceptions
and
complicated provisos.

24. Once a person is convicted for an
offence of rape, he should be treated with a
heavy hand. An undeserved indulgence or
liberal attitude in not awarding adequate
sentence in such cases would amount to
allowing or even to encouraging 'potential
criminals'. The society can no longer
endure under such serious threats. Courts
must hear the loud cry for justice by society
in cases of heinous crime of rape and
impose
adequate
sentence.
Public
abhorrence of the crime needs reflection
through imposition of appropriate sentence
by the Court. [Refer: State of M.P. v.
Babulal5 and Dinesh Vs. State of
Rajshtan]6

25. In view thereof, government
appeal is allowed. The order dated 25
February 1989, passed by the Sessions
Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.
784 of 1988 (State vs. Dharmu alias
Dharam Singh) arising from Case Crime
No. 183 of 1988, under Section 376 IPC,
Police
Station
Kannauj,
District
Farrukhabad, is set aside.

26. Accused-respondent Dharmu alias
Dharam Singh is, hereby, held guilty. He is
convicted under Section 376 IPC and
sentenced
to
10
years
rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, on
default of deposition of fine the accused
respondent shall serve one year simple
imprisonment. Rs.20,000/- of the fine so
realized, shall be given to the victim
towards
compensation.
The
accused,
Dharmu alias Dharam Singh, is on bail. His
bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged. He should be taken into
custody forthwith to serve out the sentence
awarded to him. The office is directed to
communicate this order to the CJM
concerned within a week for compliance.

27. The trial court record, along with
the copy of this order, be returned
forthwith.
----------
(2022)04ILR A294
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2022

BEFORE

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

Govt. Appeal No. 1000636 of 2006

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Lallan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. C.S. Pandey, A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 378 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A, 304-B &
201 & Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Section
3/4-challenge
to-acquittaldeceased died an unnatural death in her
matrimonial home-she committed suicide
by hanging-she was suffering from 'fits of
unconciousness'-father of the deceased
PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that
he incurred all expenditure of treatment
till she was alive-demand of passion
motorcycle by in-laws is false, at that
relevant time Passion motorcycle was not
launched in the market, to prove the same
letter of the concerned Agency was filedMoreso, the incident did not occur within
seven years of the marriage of the
deceased, but after seven years-accused
not only proved that the marriage was
solemnized before 7 years by producing
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Lallan & Ors.
295
marriage card but also prescription of the
doctor that the deceased was mentally ill
and the same was corroborated by PW-1To hold guilty the person accused of
offence u/s 304-B it must be proved that
the death of woman was caused by an
unnatural death within seven years of
marriage and soon before her death, she
was
subjected
to
cruelty

in
her
matrimonial home in connection with any
demand of dowry-Thus, the ingredients
required
u/s
304-B
have
not
been
established as to raise the presumption
u/s 113-B of Indian Evidence Act against
the appellants.(Para 1 to 8)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Achhar Singh Vs St. of H.P. (2021) 5 SCC 543

2. Maya Devi & anr. Vs St. of Har. (2015) 17
SCC 405

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

1. This Criminal Appeal has been
filed by the appellant- State of U.P. against
the judgment and order dated 02.012.2005
passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court
No.1, District Kheri in Sessions Trial
No.797 of 2003 under Sections 498-A,
304-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short I.P.C.) and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act (in short D.P. Act), whereby
the accused/respondents were acquitted.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of
this appeal as culled out are as under:-

i. A First Information Report (in
short F.I.R.) was registered at Case Crime
No.443 of 2002 under Sections 498-A,
304-B, 201 of I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of
written report submitted by the complainant
Mustakim. it was described in the written
report that the complainant married his
daughter Parvin aged about 24 years in
June 1996 to Lallan son of Asgar. After the
marriage Lallan and other family members
i.e. Asgar (mother-in-law) Sahnoor (Jeth),
Khanney (jeth), Laddan (dewar), wife of
Sahnoor (jethani) and wife of Khanney
(jethani) started complaining about the less
dowry given in the marriage and used to
demand
Passion
Motorcycle.
The
complainant gave dowry in the marriage
according to his status and capacity, but due
to scarcity of money he could not give
motorcycle. For this reason, Lallan and
other family members used to beat his
daughter. Just eight days ahead of the
incident Lallan came to take his daughter
and when he left the house of the
complainant he asked him to arrange the
motorcycle within eight days otherwise that
will not be good. On 24.12.2002 at about
2:00
P.M.
Vasir
informed
to
the
complainant that his daughter Parvin had
died in the night. On this information he
reached the matrimonial home of his
daughter and found the dead body lying in
the home and all accused persons fled
away. Only the mother-in-law of the
deceased was present there. The villagers
and Gram Pradhan who were present there
tried to allure him by offering Rs.20
thousand and not to report to the police,
when complainant refused the offer, they
did not even gave the dead body to him.
Thereafter the complainant went to the
police station Oel district Kheri, but his
report was not lodged and he was asked to
present a written report that his daughter
was killed by the accused persons in the
night of 23/24.12.2002.

After
investigation
the
chargesheet was submitted against all the
accused
persons
in
the
Court.
The
concerned
Magistrate
after
taking
cognizance committed the case to Sessions
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court for trial. Sessions Judge framed the
charges against all the accused persons on
07.07.2004. All the accused persons denied
the crime and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove its case the
prosecution
examined
the
following
witnesses:-

(i) P.W.1 Mustakim, complainant.

(ii) P.W.2 Mubarak Ali, brother of
the deceased

(iii) P.W. 3 Mr. Vijay Vardhan
Tomar, Naib Tehsildar who prepared the
inquest report and send the dead body for
post-mortem alongwith necessary police
papers

(iv) P.W.4 Dr. A.K. Malik, who
conducted the post-mortem on the cadaver
of the deceased.

Apart
from
the
above
oral
evidence, documentary evidence ExhibitKa 1 to Exhibit Ka-9 were also proved.
These exihibits are as under:-

(i) Exhibit Ka-1, written report,.

(ii) Exhibit Ka-2 inquest report.

(iii) Exhibit Ka-3 Police Form 13.

(iv) Exhibit Ka-4 Police Form 33.

(v) Exhibit Ka-5 Photo Nash.

(vi) Exhibit Ka-6 report of R.I.

(vii) Exhibit Ka-7 report to
C.M.O. for conducting postmortem.

(viii) Exhibit- Ka-8 specimen
seal.

(ix) Exhibit Ka-9 post-mortem
report.

After close of evidence by
prosecution the statement of accused
persons were recorded under Section 313
of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
Cr.P.C.), wherein they denied the crime and
stated that marriage of the deceased with
Lallan was solemnized in the year 1995 and
the deceased was ill, so she committed
suicide
by
hanging. Accused
Lallan
examined herself as D.W.1 after seeking
permission of the trial Court and proved
two documents, Exhibit Kha-1 marriage
card of the deceased with accused Lallan
and Exhibit Kha-2 prescription of a doctor
who treated the deceased.

The trial court after hearing the
arguments of both the sides on the basis of
evidence available on record reached on the
conclusions that the marriage of the
deceased with accused/appellant Lallan
was solemnized in the year 1995 and
incident did not take place within seven
years of marriage. The trial court also
concluded that deceased was mentally ill as
has been proved by Lallan examined as
D.W.1 and evident from Exhibit Kha-2 the
prescription of treatment by Dr. Dinesh
Dua of the deceased. P.W. 1. Mustakim, the
father of the deceased has also stated in his
cross examination that Pravin was ill and
he incurred all expenditure of treatment till
the deceased was alive and treatment was
going on in Laherpur. Exhibit Kha-2 shows
that the deceased was suffering from 'fits of
unconsciousness',
so
she
committed
suicide. As far as demand of Passion
Motorcycle is concerned learned trial Court
has observed that at the relevant time
Passion Motor Cycle was not launched in
the market, hence the allegation of demand
of Passion Motorcycle is also false, hence
the learned trial Court acquitted all the
appellants/accused persons of the charges
levelled against them. Being aggrieved by
this acquittal this appeal has been filed by
the State Government.

3. Heard Mr. C.S. Pandey, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate/
(A.G.A.) for the State-appellant.

4. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the
impugned judgment is against facts and
evidence available on record. Learned trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence in
right perspective and has committed the
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Lallan & Ors.
297
grave
error
by
acquitting
the
appellant/accused persons. The factum of
demand of dowry has been proved by the
witnesses of facts, the complainant and the
brother of the deceased, but the trial court
has wrongly disbelieved them and also
wrongly disbelieved the evidence that
marriage of the deceased was solemnized
with the accused/appellant Lallan in the
year 1997, hence the impugned judgment
should be set-aside.

5. Considered the submissions made
by learned A.G.A. and perused the original
record.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Achhar Singh Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh : (2021) 5 SCC 543,
has laid down as under ( para 16) :-

"16. It is thus a well crystalized
principle that if two views are possible,
the High Court ought not to interfere with
the trial Court's judgment. However, such
a precautionary principle cannot be
overstretched
to
portray
that
the
"contours of appeal" against acquittal
under Section 378 CrPC are limited to
seeing whether or not the trial Court's
view was impossible. It is equally well
settled that there is no bar on the High
Court's power to re-appreciate evidence
in an appeal against acquittal. This Court
has held in a catena of decisions
(including
Chandrappa
v.
State
of
Karnataka, State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.
Madhusudhan Rao, And Raveen Kumar v.
State of Himachal Pradesh) that the
Cr.P.C does not differentiate in the power,
scope, jurisdiction or limitation between
appeals against judgments of conviction
or acquittal and that the appellate Court
is free to consider on both fact and law,
despite the self-restraint that has been
ingrained into practice while dealing
with orders of acquittal where there is a
double presumption of innocence of the
accused".

7. Before moving forward, it
appears appropriate to go through 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
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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 above mentioned 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."

8. Thus to hold guilty the person
accused of offence under Section 304-B it
must be proved that the death of woman
was caused by any burns or bodily injury or
she died an unnatural death within seven
years of her marriage. It should also be
proved that soon before her death the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment in connection with any demand
of dowry. In the present matter the
deceased died an unnatural death in her
matrimonial home. Though it has been
alleged in the FIR as well as in the
statement of the complainant that the
marriage
of
the
deceased
with
the
accused/appellant Lallan was solemnized in
June 1996, but that fact could not be proved
by the prosecution because P.W.1 and P.W.2
in this regard have given contradictory
statements. P.W.1 has stated that marriage
was solemnized in June 1996, while the
P.W.2 brother of the deceased has stated
that
marriage
of
the
deceased
was
solemnized
in
June
1997.
The
accused/appellant Lallan as D.W.1 has
stated that his marriage with the deceased
was solemnized in June 1995. To prove this
fact he (Lallan) produced marriage card
Exhibit Kha-1 and the trial Court has
rightly relied on that evidence and came to
the conclusion that marriage of the
deceased with accused/appellant Lallan
was solemnized in June 1995. The incident
took place on 24.12.2002, thus the incident
did not occur within seven years of the
marriage of the deceased, but after seven
years. Further the accused/appellant Lallan
has proved that the deceased was mentally
ill by producing the Exhibit Kha-2 the
prescription of the doctor Dinesh Dua,
wherein it has been recorded by the doctor
that the deceased was suffering from 'fits of
unconsciousness'. The factum of illness of
the deceased has also been corroborated by
P.W.1 the father of the deceased, as in his
cross-examination he has stated that her
daughter was being treated in Laherpur and
4 All. Malhan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
299
he incurred all the expenses of treatment.
Further the learned trial Court has rightly
reached to the conclusion that at the time of
alleged demand Honda Passion Motorcycle
was not launched in the market as the letter
of the concerned Agency has been filed by
the appellant on the record in the Court,
wherein it has been mentioned that Honda
Passion Motorcycle was launched in the
market in the year 2001: Hence the learned
trial Court has rightly came to the
conclusion that the ingredients required
under Section 304 B have not been
established as to raise the presumption
under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence
Act against the appellants / accused. In
such a situation the learned trial Court
rightly acquitted the appellant/accused
persons. There appears no error in the
findings of the learned trial Court further
more the view taken by the learned trial
Court is a possible view. Thus there appears
no convincing reason to interfere with the
acquittal recorded by the learned trial
Court. Hence this appeal deserves dismissal
and is dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2022)04ILR A299
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 22 of 2022
In
First Appeal Defective No. 817 of 2000

Malhan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Madan Mohan Chaurasisa

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

A. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Section 114 - review-review
application filed with a delay of about 6
years-the appeal came to be partly
allowed way back in the year 2016-the
kind of explanation rendered that they
were not aware of the legal provisions or
delay due to covid-19 herein does not
satisfy the observations of the Apex
Court-this is a case which shows complete
careless and reckless long delay on the
part of applicants which has remained
virtually
unexplained
at
all-Thus,
no
reason to exercise judicial discretion to
justify condonation of delay in the present
case-delay defeats equity-the court help
those who are vigilant and do not slumber
over their rights.(Para 1 to 20)

B. There is no presumption that delays in
approaching
the
court
is
always
deliberate.
No
person
gains
from
deliberate delaying a matter by not
resorting
to
take
appropriate
legal
remedy within time but then words
"sufficient cause" show that delay if any,
occurred,
should
not
be
deliberate,
negligent and due to casual approach of
concerned litigant, but it should be bona
fide. Lapse on the part of litigant in
approaching
Court
within
time
is
understandable but total inaction for
long
period
of
delay
without
any
explanation whatsoever and that too in
absence of showing any sincere attempt
on the part of suiter, would add to his
negligence, and would be relevant factor
going against him.(Para 7 to 16)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Narendra & ors.. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.. (2017)
9 SCC 426

2. Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Katiji (1987) 2
107