# State of U.P v. Manish Kumar & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 28
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-21
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 1062 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-manish-kumar-anr-53127
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 498A, 304B & 302 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 &
313 - Appeal against acquittal - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B -
Death due to demand of dowry not proved
as theory propounded by PW1 to PW3
regarding demand of dowry made just
after
four
days
of
marriage
when
deceased (victim) went for first time to
her maternal house from matrimonial
house stands belied since FIR lodged on
22.6.2017
relating
to
incident
dated
18.6.2017 does not show this fact - No
cruelty was inflicted upon deceased -
DW1 deposed that A1 was present in his
house on fateful day as he came to his
house to meet his ailing teacher, two or
three women came from house of A1,
apprised that wife of A1 consumed
pesticide pills, A1 along with DW1 and
villagers went to house where victim
consumed by mistake thinking it to be
medicine for fever - Testimony of DW1
intact,
no
questions
for
demolishing
testimony has been asked by prosecution.
(Para 41, 43)

PW2 and PW3 deposed that accused A2
was staying for the past 30-32 years,
where her husband was working - Nothing
on
record
either
in
deposition
of
prosecution witness or otherwise suggest
that
A1
and
A2
were
involved
in
commission of crime - No illegality in
impugned order. (Para 44, 46)

Appeals rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,835 of 49,431. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39835 for what follows._

28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. In view of above, this Court
does not find any illegality or error in the
impugned judgment and award dated
18.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in
Case No.OA/II/U/995/15, which may call
for any interference by this Court. The
appeal has been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds, which is liable to be
dismissed.

13. The appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 28
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Government Appeal No. 1062 of 2024
With
Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. 254 of
2023

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Manish Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.K. Sand, Sri Anil Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 498A, 304B & 302 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 &
313 - Appeal against acquittal - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B -
Death due to demand of dowry not proved
as theory propounded by PW1 to PW3
regarding demand of dowry made just
after
four
days
of
marriage
when
deceased (victim) went for first time to
her maternal house from matrimonial
house stands belied since FIR lodged on
22.6.2017
relating
to
incident
dated
18.6.2017 does not show this fact - No
cruelty was inflicted upon deceased -
DW1 deposed that A1 was present in his
house on fateful day as he came to his
house to meet his ailing teacher, two or
three women came from house of A1,
apprised that wife of A1 consumed
pesticide pills, A1 along with DW1 and
villagers went to house where victim
consumed by mistake thinking it to be
medicine for fever - Testimony of DW1
intact,
no
questions
for
demolishing
testimony has been asked by prosecution.
(Para 41, 43)

PW2 and PW3 deposed that accused A2
was staying for the past 30-32 years,
where her husband was working - Nothing
on
record
either
in
deposition
of
prosecution witness or otherwise suggest
that
A1
and
A2
were
involved
in
commission of crime - No illegality in
impugned order. (Para 44, 46)

Appeals rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajesh Prasad Vs St. of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC
(471), (Paras 21 to 25)

2. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & ors. Vs
St. of Karn. 2024 (8) SCC 129, (Paras 38 to
40)

3. Yudhishtir Vs St. of M.P., 1971 (3) SCC 436,
(Para 11)

4. Digambar & anr. Vs St. of Mah. & anr.,
Criminal Appeal No....of 2024 arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.2122 of 2020, decided on 20.12.2024,
(Para 22)

5. Charan Singh @ Chanranjit Singh Vs The St.
of Uttarakhand (2023) 3 S.C.R. 511

6. Baijnath & others Vs St. of M.P. (2017) 1 SCC
101, (Para 13) (Relied on)
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Manish Kumar & Anr.
29
7. Karan Singh Vs St. of Har., Criminal Appeal
No. 1076 of 2014, decided on 31.01.2025
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1.
Impugned
in
the
present
proceedings by way of Government Appeal
No. 1062 of 2024 at the instance of State of
U.P. and Appeal Under Section 372 of
Cr.P.C. No. 254 of 2023, preferred by
Ashok Kumar (Informant) is the judgment
and the order dated 2.3.2023 passed by the
court of Session Judge, Auraiya in Sessions
Trial No. 174 of 2018, State vs. Manoj
Kumar and others arising out of Case
Crime No. 75 of 2018, under Sections
498A, 304B, 302 IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sahayal,
District Auraiya acquitting the accused
respondents.

Facts

2. The prosecution theory in brief is
that on 20.3.2017, Ashok Kumar (first
informant), lodged a first information
report in Police Station Sahayal, District
Auraiya alleging that his daughter Neeta
(victim) solemnized marriage on 29.1.2016
with the accused (A-1), Manish Kumar, son
of Brij Kishore Pal, resident of village
Gadhaiya, Police Station Sahayal, District
Auraiya . It is further alleged that gifts were
offered to the groomside as per his status.
However, the accused, (A-1) Manish
Kumar, his father Brij Kishore Pal, fatherin-law of the deceased (victim), accused
(A-2) Rajeshwari, mother-in-law of the
deceased (victim) and sister-in-law Manu
used to demand dowry in the shape of a
four-wheeler and amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
which according to them was to be
tendered since the gifts and the offerings so
made
by
the
bridegroom
side
was
thoroughly insufficient. On account of nonfulfilment of the said demand, atrocities
were sought to be made upon the deceased
(victim). The said fact was even apprised to
the first informant and his family whenever
the deceased (victim) met her maternal
family members.

3. A first information report came to
be lodged in Police Station, Mangalpur,
Kanpur Dehat on 22.6.2017 being FIR
No.265/2017, under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act and thereafter, on an advice
being tendered to them not to repeat the
said act but they continued to demand
dowry and maltreat the victim. On
19.03.2018, the accused (A-1), Manish
Kumar informed the brother of the first
informant, Brijesh Kumar that the deceased
(victim) had consumed poison on account
whereof the victim was taken for medical
treatment, however, she died. On the
receipt of the said information, the first
informant along with his family members
and villagers came to the matrimonial
house of the victim where they found that
the body was lying outside the house of the
accused, they were absconding and the
house was locked.

4. A first information report came to
be lodged on 20.03.2018 at 0020 hours
which was registered as Case Crime No.75
of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC
read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the accused (A-1)
Manish Kumar, Brij Kishore Pal, (A-2)
Rajeshwari
and
Manu.
The
first
information report was registered by Head
Constable, Sobran Singh and the inquest
was also prepared in the presence of PW-4
Premchand Pandey, the Naib Tehsildar.
The corpus of the deceased was sent for
postmortem and the postmortem was
conducted by Dr. Subodh Kumar. PW-6
Bandana
Singh,
Circle
Officer
was
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointed as the Investigating Officer to
conduct
investigation.
The
necessary
formalities with respect to preparation of
the site plan was also undertaken and the
statement of the PW-1 Ashok Kumar
(father of the deceased), PW-2 Arun
Kumar, (uncle of the deceased) and PW3,
Rita, maternal sister-in-law of the deceased
was also recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C.
The
Investigating
Officer
conducted the investigation and submitted
the charge sheet, under Sections 498A,
304B, IPC, read with Section 3/4 of the
Dowry
Prohibition
Act
accused
A1,
Manish Kumar, A2, Rajeshwari and Brij
Kishore Pal whereas Ms. Manu was
exonerated from the charges. Thereafter
cognizance was taken and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. During the trial, the prosecution
examined as many as 8 witnesses namely,
Ashok Kumar, informant PW-1, PW-2,
Arun Kumar and PW-3, Rita. PW-4, Prem
Chand, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Bidhuna
proved the inquest, PW5, Constable Sharif
Khan proved the Chik FIR which was
lodged by Head Constable Sobran Singh,
PW-6, Circle Officer, Bandana Singh
proved the steps taken in conducting the
investigation,
PW-7,
Rajesh
Yadav,
Pharmacist
proved
the
factum
of
postmortem which was conducted by Dr.
Subodh Kumar, (since deceased). After
prosecution evidence was closed the trial
court recorded the statement of A-1,
Manish Kumar, A-2, Rajeshwari Devi,
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The
accused denied the allegations level against
them and stated that they have been falsely
implicated in the criminal case. During trial
Brij Kishore Pal (father-in-law) expired on
18.9.2022. The trial court found the
accused
A-1,
Manish
Kumar,
A-2,
Rajeshwari Devi, innocent and acquitted
them from the charges under Sections
498A, 304B, 302 IPC and read with
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. In order to establish its case, the
prosecution had produced the documentary
and oral evidence-

Documentary evidence

Written Report
A-1
Panchayatnama
A-2
Letter CHO
A-3
Photo of the Corpus
A-4
Challan of the Corpus
A-5 and A-6
G.D. report
A-7
Chik, First Information Report
A-8
Site-Plan
A-9
Charge sheet
A-10
Post mortem report and Forensic
Report
A-11

Testimony
of
the
Prosecution
Witnesses

7.
PW1
Ashok
Kumar.
The
informant has been examined as PW1, he is
the father of the deceased (victim). PW1 in
his examination-in-chief has deposed that
the marriage of her daughter, with deceased
(victim) was solemnized on 29.01.2016
with A1, Manish Kumar, who used to
demand
dowry.
The
complaint
of
demanding of dowry was apprised to him
when he had gone after a period of 4 days
post marriage on 29.01.2016 to call her in
her maternal house which is celebrated as a
ceremony. The deceased (victim) had
apprised him that A1, Manish father-in-law
Brijesh Kumar, A2 Rajeshwari (mother-inlaw) and maternal sister-in-law used to
demand
dowry
in
the
shape
of
Rs.1,00,000/- and four-wheeler and due to
non-offering
of
the
same,
she
was
administered beating and subjected to
maltreatment. He further deposed that the
deceased (victim) was thrown out by inlaws on 18.06.2017 in the outskirts of the
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Manish Kumar & Anr.
31
village
and
on
gathering
the
said
knowledge a first information report was
lodged. First information report was lodged
on 22.06.2017 before the Police Station
Mangalpur, District Ramabai Nagar, under
Sections 323, 498A, 506 IPC, read with
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Thereafter,
a
settlement
took
place,
pursuant whereto the deceased (victim)
went back to her in-laws place and the
family members assured that they would
not repeat the said acts. He further deposed
that whenever the deceased (victim) used to
come from matrimonial place to her
maternal home then she used to complain
about
beating
and
maltreatment
and
requested that the demand of dowry be
made good. PW1 further deposed that all
efforts were made by the first informant
and his family to somewhat pacify them
and not to raise demand. On 19.03.2018
through telephone, information was given
that the deceased (victim) had consumed
poison on account of which she died. On
gaining the said information, the first
informant along with the family members
and villagers went to the matrimonial place
of the deceased (victim) whereupon they
found that the corpse of the deceased
(victim) was lying outside the house and
the house was locked. Thereafter, written
report was submitted before the police
station on dictation through the scribe
Anurag Pal, who thereafter read the written
report and on being satisfied the first
informant signed the written report. After
the arrival of the police, the inquest was
prepared and the corpse of the deceased
(victim) was sealed. The first informant in
his examination-in-chief deposed that the
deceased (victim) about one month prior to
the fateful day on which she died met him
in a family marriage complaining that her
in-laws were demanding dowry in the
shape of a four-wheeler and money in cash
and in case the same is not tendered that
they would kill her.

8. PW2 Arun Kumar got himself
examined
as
PW2
and
he
in
his
examination-in chief deposed that the
deceased (victim) is her niece, who got
married with accused A1, Manish Kumar
on 29.01.2016. When post marriage, she
first time visited her maternal house then
she
apprised
that
the
accused
are
demanding dowry by way of cash of Rs 1
lakh and a four-wheeler and on account of
non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry,
she was maltreated. He also deposed that
the deceased (victim) was on account of
non-fulfillment of the dowry was thrown
away from the house in the outskirts of the
village, thereafter a first information report
stood lodged and pursuant to a settlement
and the assurance so sought to be extended
by the accused faction that they would not
ill-treat her, the deceased (victim) went
back to her matrimonial house. In his
deposition PW1 further stated that one
month prior to the death of the deceased
(victim), she in one of the family relatives
house apprised him that her father, first
informant and PW2 should take endeavours
to fulfil the demand raised by way of
dowry otherwise she would be killed. PW2
further deposed that on 19.03.2018 at about
8.00 in the late evening information was
received that the accused/in-laws of the
deceased (victim) had killed the victim and
when they went to the matrimonial house
of the deceased (victim) then they found
the
deceased
(victim)
dead
pursuant
whereto PW1, Ashok Kumar got the
written report submitted in the police
station, FIR was registered, the inquest was
done.

9. PW3 Rita stepped in the witness
box as PW3. She deposed that she is the
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maternal sister-in-law of the deceased
(victim). She also narrated that the
marriage of the deceased (victim) with A1,
Manish
Kumar
was
solemnized
on
29.01.2016, they were demanding dowry
and when post marriage, she for the first
time came to her matrimonial house then
she made complaint that dowry was being
demanded by way of cash of Rs. 1 lakh and
four wheeler. She also complained that she
would be killed in case the dowry demand
is not fulfilled. She also narrated that
deceased (victim) was thrown away from
the house pursuant whereto an FIR was
lodged and on a settlement being entered
into the deceased (victim) went back to her
house. PW3 also deposed that a month
prior to the death of the deceased (victim),
she met the deceased (victim) in one of the
marriages of her sister-in-law complaining
that the accused are demanding dowry and
in case the dowry is not fulfilled, she would
be killed. On receiving the information
regarding the death of the deceased
(victim), she along with the other family
members had gone to the place of deceased
in-laws.

10. PW4 Prem Chand Pandey
stepped in the witness box as PW4,
according to him he was posted as Naib
Tehsildar of Tehsil Bidhuna on 20.03.2018
and on receiving information through
phone from Deputy District Officer, he
went to the Village Garehwa, Police
Station, Sahayal, District, Auraiya, where
the deceased (victim's) body was lying and
he proved the inquest. He also deposed that
the injuries which the deceased (victim)
sustained was got inspected by female
constable Priyanka Singh, in the presence
of the mother of the deceased.

11. PW5 Constable Sharif Khan. He
is a formal witness, who has proved that on
20.03.2018, he was posted in Police
Station, Sahayal as Clerk / Computer Clerk
and on that date HCP, Sobaran Singh was
also posted in the said Police Station. He
has proved the factum of lodging of written
report and Chik FIR.

12.
PW6
Bandana
Singh,
the
Investigating Officer deposed that he was
posted as Circle Officer, Auraiya on
20.03.2018. According to him, he was
assigned the task to conduct investigation,
he had taken depositions of the prosecution
witnesses. He also proved that inquest was
prepared, body was sent for post-mortem
and she further claimed that the charge
sheet was submitted against the accused.

13. PW7 Rajesh Yadav. He deposed
that he since October, 2016 is posted as
Pharmacist
in
C.H.P.
Acchnada,
the
postmortem was conducted by Subodh
Kumar, who is now deceased. Postmortem
was conducted on 20.3.2018 in his
presence at 2.30 p.m. which concluded on
3.00 p.m. He proved the factum of
postmortem.

Testimony of Defence Witness

14. D.W.1 Sudheer Kumar, stepped
into the witness box, as D.W.1. According
to him, on 19.3.2018, A1, Manish Kumar
had come to his house to meet his father,
Lajjaram, who was unwell and they were
sitting just on the gate in front of their
house. Apart from A1, Manish Kumar,
there were other villagers also who were
sitting and at about 5-6 p.m. in the evening,
two or three women came from the house
of A1, Manish Kumar, screaming that the
deceased (victim), who is the wife of A1,
Manish Kumar had due to inadvertence has
consumed pesticide pills. He also deposed
that the deceased (victim) for the past two
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Manish Kumar & Anr.
33
to three days before her death on
19.03.2018 was suffering from fever and
due to inadvertence, she had eaten the
pesticide pills on account whereof, her
condition deteriorated. After receiving the
information, A1, Manish Kumar along with
him and other villagers, who were sitting
outside his house immediately rushed to the
house of A1, Manish Kumar, whereupon it
was found that the health condition of the
deceased (victim) was deteriorating and in
front of all the villagers including him, the
deceased (victim) uttered, stated that due to
misconception had eaten the pesticide pills
thinking it to be the medicine for curing the
fever. Thereafter, A1, Manish Kumar took
the deceased (victim) to Kanpur for
medical treatment, and he went back to his
house since his father was not well. On the
same day, at about 7-7.30 p.m., he received
information
that
the
deceased
had
succumbed to death and when he went to
the house of A1, Manish Kumar, he found
the corpus of the deceased. He further
deposed that A1, Manish informed his inlaws through phone that the deceased
(victim) is no more. At that time A1,
Manish was sitting outside his house just in
front of the door. D.W.1, further deposed
that the father of A1, Manish Kumar, Brij
Kishore Pal is a teacher in one of the
institutions in District Shivpur, in Madhya
Pradesh, which is about 500-600 k.m. away
from his village. Along with Brij Kishore
Pal, his wife A1, Rajeshwari and the
daughter Manu also stays with them, and at
the time of the said incident, they were not
physically present.

Legal Position:

15. Before pondering into the niceties
of
the
judgment of
acquittal
under
challenge in the proceedings under Section
378(3) Cr.P.C. at the instance of the State,
this Court has to re-memoirse itself the fact
that the present proceedings are in a form
of
appellate
jurisdiction
occasioning
scrutiny of a judgment of acquittal wherein
there are certain limitations provided
therein which needs to be recognised
before the delving in the issue.

16. Broadly speaking until and unless
the judgment under challenge is perverse
and there are substantial and compelling
reasons followed by miscarriage of justice
to be meted by the parties, this Court
should not in routine manner interfere with
the judgment of acquittal as the accused is
possessed with double presumption of
innocence.

17. To put it otherwise as a matter of
right, this Court cannot at the instance of
the appellant, who happens to be State
exercise the jurisdiction while converting
the judgment of acquittal into conviction.

18. The aforesaid principle of law has
already been crystallized by Hon'ble Apex
Court in plethora of decisions and just for
the sake of illustration reference may be
made to the judgment of Rajesh Prasad
Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC (471)
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein
the following was observed.-

"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 Emperor2 considered the
provisions relating to the power of an
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellate court in dealing with an appeal
against an order of a 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.3, 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
Rajasthant: (Sanwat Singh case4, AIR pp.
719-20, para 9)

"9. The foregoing discussion
yields the following results: (1) an
appellate court has full power to review the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded; (2) the principles laid down in
Sheo Swarup2 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 Saurashtra5 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 is the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking
through
Gajendragadkar,
J.
(as
his
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Manish Kumar & Anr.
35
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, 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 Gujarats, 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. ... While sitting in judgment
over an acquittal the appellate 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
appellate court answers the above question
in the negative the order of acquittal is not
to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate
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 and then only reappraise
the
evidence
to
arrive
at
its
own
conclusions."

The object and the purpose of the
aforesaid approach is to ensure that there
is no miscarriage of justice. In another
words, there should not be an acquittal of
the guilty or a conviction of an innocent
person.

31.1. Ordinarily, this Court is
cautious in interfering with an order of
acquittal, especially when the order of
acquittal has been confirmed up to the
High Court. It is only in rarest of rare
cases, where the High Court, on an
absolutely wrong process of reasoning and
a legally erroneous and perverse approach
to the facts of the case, ignoring some of
the most vital facts, has acquitted the
accused, that the same may be reversed by
this Court, exercising jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution. [State of
U.P. v. Sahai] d Such fetters on the right to
entertain an appeal are prompted by the
reluctance to expose a person, who has
been acquitted by a competent court of a
criminal charge, to the anxiety and tension
of a further examination of the case, even
though it is held by a superior court.
[Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham].
An appeal cannot be entertained against an
order of acquittal which has, after
recording valid and weighty reasons, has
arrived
at
an
unassailable,
logical
conclusion which justifies acquittal."

19. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court
in
Babu
Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and others Vs. State of
Karnataka 2024 (8) SCC 129 the Apex
Court had flagged a note of caution in the
matters of exercise of appellate jurisdiction
when the Appellate Court is confronted
with an order of acquittal, the following
was observed:-

"38. First of all, we would like to
reiterate the principles laid down by this
Court governing the scope of interference
by the High Court in an appeal filed by the
State for challenging acquittal of the
accused recorded by the trial court.
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad
Vs. State of Bihar encapsulated the legal
position covering the field after considering
various earlier judgments and held as
below: (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29)

"29. After referring to a catena of
judgments, this Court culled out the
following general principles regarding the
powers of the appellate court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of
acquittal
in
the
following
words:
(Chandrappa case, SCC p. 432, para 42)

'42. From the above decisions, in
our considered view, the following general
principles
regarding
powers
of
the
appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full
power power to review, reappreciate and
reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.

(2)
The
Criminal
Procedure
Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction
or condition on exercise of such power and
an appellate court on the evidence before it
may read its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong
circumstances",
"distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are
not intended to curtail extensive powers of
an appellate court in an appeal against
acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of "flourishes of language" to
emphasise the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to
curtail the power of the court to review the
evidence
and
to
come
to
its
own
conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is 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 shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court."

40. Further, in H.D. Sundara Vs.
State of Karnataka this Court summarised
the principles governing the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378
Cr.P.C. as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 8)

"8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the
accused further strengthen the presumption
of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while
hearing an appeal against acquittal, is
entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while
deciding an appeal against acquittal, after
reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial
court is a possible view which could have
been taken on the basis of the evidence on
record;

8.4. If the view taken is a possible
view, the appellate court cannot overturn
the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and

8.5. The appellate court can
interfere with the order of acquittal only if
it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the
basis of the evidence on record was that the
guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Manish Kumar & Anr.
37
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion
was possible."

20.
Broadly
speaking
the
same
principles also stands applied to the appeals
under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. by the
informant / complainant.

21. Bearing in mind the principles of
law so laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as referred to above the present case
is to be proceeded with while giving it a
logical end.

Submissions advanced on behalf of
the State appellants and counsel for the
informant

22. Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned
AGA along with Sri Anil Kumar
Pandey, who appear for the informant
have made the manifold submissions
namely:

(a) The accused herein have
committed offence which stood proved
beyond doubt, as the sequence of the events
itself show that there was a consistent
demand
raised
by
the
accused
for
fulfilment of dowry and on account of nonsatisfaction of the same, the deceased was
done to death.

(b) Once the death of the
deceased (victim) was not under normal
circumstances, that too within a period of 7
years of the marriage in the matrimonial
house, then the onus to prove innocence
lies upon the accused faction.

(c) The depositions of PW1, PW2
and PW3 could not have been discarded as
unworthy of acceptance particularly when
in the past also with relation to demanding
of dowry coupled with administration of
beating and maltreatment, an FIR stood
lodged.

(d) In any case, demand of dowry
could not be ruled out to be a factor for
commissioning of the offence, particularly
when the deceased (victim) used to
complain about demand of dowry and in
absence of fulfilment of the same, she was
threatened to be done to death.

(e) The present case comes within
the ambit of the yardsticks relating to the
essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC
read with Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act, so as to show that the death of the
deceased (victim) was on account of dowry
while injecting the theory (soon before her
death).

(f) Even otherwise, once the
deceased (victim) was done to death in a
matrimonial house then the burden under
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, would fall
upon
the
accused,
showing
the
circumstances that they are innocent.

Analysis

23.
We
have
given
thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced by
the learned AGA and the counsel for the
informant and perused the record carefully
including the trial court records.

24. The first information report was
lodged on 20.3.2018 at 00.20 hours under
Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and Section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the first
informant PW1, Ashok Kumar, alleging
that the deceased (victim), who happens to
be his daughter, solemnized marriage with
A1,
Manish
Kumar
on
29.1.2016.
However, regular demands were being
made for fulfillment of the dowry by way
of a four wheeler and cash to the tune of
rupees one lakh and on account of the nonfulfilment of dowry demands the deceased
(victim) was done to death. The entire basis
for implicating the accused is with relation
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to demand of dowry. In order to establish
that dowry was being demanded by the
accused PW1, in his examination-in-chief
had deposed that though the marriage was
solemnized
on
29.1.2016
but
post
completion of four days stay of the
deceased (victim) in her matrimonial house
when he came to take her in the maternal
house then the deceased (victim) for the
very first time apprised him that dowry was
being demanded by the accused. He further
deposed that whenever the deceased used
to meet him, then she used to apprise the
family that regular demand of dowry was
being made and she was threatened that in
case dowry is not being made good, then
she has to face music and she was meted
with beating and harassment at all levels.
PW1 further alleges, that on 18.06.2017,
the deceased was thrown out of her house
in the outskirts of the village, matrimonial
house, village and thereafter a first
information
report
was
lodged
on
22.06.2017 under Sections 323, 498A, 506
IPC
read
with
Section
3/4
Dowry
Prohibition Act. Thereafter settlement was
entered into and on the assurance of the inlaws of the deceased (victim), she went
back to her matrimonial house. He further
alleges, that about one month prior to the
death of the deceased (victim) in a place
know as Kachaunsi in a family wedding
deceased met him and requested to fulfil
the dowry demands otherwise she would be
killed.

25. PW2, Arun Kumar, uncle of the
deceased also narrated the same story
while deposing that at the time of her first
arrival to her maternal house, post
marriage,
she
apprised
that
dowry
demands are being sought to be raised
coupled with the complain of demand of
dowry in case of non-fulfilment of
demand done to death one month prior to
the fateful day in a relative place at
Kachaunsi.

26. Similarly, PW3, Rita, being the
maternal sister-in-law deposed that when
the deceased, after marriage for the very
first time went from matrimonial house to
maternal house then she complained that
dowry is being demanded and in case the
same is not paid, she would be meted
with ill-treatment and beating,. PW3
further deposed that one month prior to
the death of the deceased in her sister-inlaw
marriage,
the
deceased
had
complained about demand of dowry and
in case the payment is not made she will
be done to death.

27. The statement of PW1, PW2 and
PW3 sticks to one fact that the demand of
the dowry stood triggered just four days
after the marriage, when for the very first
time, the deceased (victim) had gone
from matrimonial house to maternal
house. Interestingly, the first information
report lodged on 22.06.2017 by the
brother of the deceased (victim), Vinay
Pal Singh, son of PW1 Ashok Kumar
under Sections 323, 498A, 506 IPC, read
with Section 3/4 before the police station,
Mangalpur, Ramabai Nagar, FIR No.
0265 alleges that though the marriage of
the deceased (victim) with the A1,
Manish Kumar, stood solemnized on
29.01.2016 but things were in a proper
fashion and manner for six months and
thereafter on 18.06.2017, on account of
non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry,
the deceased was thrown away from the
house in the outskirts of the village.

28. The aforesaid facts clearly depicts
that the theory so sought to be propounded
by the PW1, PW2 and PW3 regarding
demand of dowry, just after a period of four
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Manish Kumar & Anr.
39
days from the marriage, when the deceased
(victim) went for the first time to her
maternal house from the matrimonial
house, stands belied.

29. Apart from the same, barring
lodging of the FIR on 22.06.2017 with
relation to be incident dated 18.6.2017
there is nothing on record to show that any
further complaint was sought to be lodged
regarding demand of dowry. Additionally,
the Court finds that the allegation of
demand of dowry sought to be raised in
statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by
the accused from the deceased (victim) one
month prior to the date of her death does
not find mention in the statements of PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-3 recorded under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C.

30. PW-6, Bandana Singh, Circle
Officer, who conducted the investigation in
his statement at page 10 has specifically
deposed, that the said allegations were not
made in the statement under section 161 of
the Cr.P.C. Non-recording of the said
statement itself goes to show, that it is
nothing
but
a
classic
example
of
improvement being sought to be made so as
to develop a theory in order to implicate the
accused.

31. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Yudhishtir vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
1971 (3) SCC 436 in para 11 has observed
as under:-

"The evidence given by P.Ws 1 &
6 before the Court was substantially in
variance with the version given by them in
the statements given to the police at the
earliest occasion. Before the Court they have
considerably improved their statements.
Omissions in the statements to the police
were of a very serious nature making their
evidence before the Court false and
unacceptable."

32. Though, the statements under
section 161 of the Cr.P.C. may not be heavily
relied upon but they are indicative of the fact
as
to
whether,
there
has
been
any
exaggeration, in the statements under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. or not. Of course, in the
present facts and the circumstances of the
case the depositions made, in the statements
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C would play a
vital role so as to show, the conduct of the
prosecution witnesses, particularly when, the
entire case hinges upon demand of the dowry
in that regard.

33.
Apparently,
the
allegations
contained in the first information report
coupled with the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses indicate dowry as a motivating
factor for the commission of crime and in
order to substantiate the same aid and
assistance has been taken of the provisions of
Section 498A and 304B of the IPC read with
Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act.

34. The offences under Section 498-A
of the Code is attracted qua the husband or
his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. Such
as any wilful conduct which is of a nature is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb
or health for harassment of the woman, where
such harassment is with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such
demand.

35.