# State of U.P v. Ram Vriksha and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 135
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-01
- **Bench:** Amar Saran, Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-ram-vriksha-and-others-42140
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

acquittaloffence under Section 498-A, 304-B, 201
I.P.C.-acquittal
on
ground-none
of
prosecution witnesses-named as inquest
witnesses-crimination
by
police
as
unknown dead body-accused produced
Dr. Ram Sakal Singh who disposed the
deceased was suffering from cholera-DW
2 performed last rites in presence of
informant as well as accused persons
and other relatives-marriage Factum not
proved by producing marriage cardconsequentially
allegation
of
dowry
demand disbelieved-such findings can
not
be
said
to
be
perverse
or
unreasonable-Application
for
lese
to
appeal rejected.

Held: Para 6

Considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances of the case, we are
satisfied that the grounds for acquittal
mentioned by the trial Court cannot be
said to be perverse or unreasonable. It is
well settled law that evenwhere two
views are possible, the view taken by the
trial Court should not normally be
interfered with if the view taken is not
highly
improbable
or
unreasonable.
Hence no interference is called for in the
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the trial Court.

## Text

1 All] State of U.P. V. Ram Vriksha and others

135
the respondents before the Court when
interim order was passed but since the
notification of 1960 has not been placed
before this Court for its perusal, I am not
taking note of the said notification for the
purpose of deciding these tow matters. In
my view the selection being subsequent to
1975 Rules and the effect of 1975 Rules is
also same i.e. rescission of Rule 8 (2) to
the extent it provides for upper age limit
in promotion, this Court is deciding the
matter
accordingly
taking
into
consideration only 1975 rules."

13. On examining the controversy
and legal issue in the present writ petition,
this Court is of the considered view that in
view of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh
Public Services (Removal of Age-Limit
for Promotion) Rules, 1975, no person,
who is otherwise eligible for promotion
under State Government, can be deprived
from promotion merely on account of any
upper age limit, as by means of these
rules and all other rules and order
imposing any upper age limit for
promotion to any service or post have
been rescinded.

14. In the result, the order dated
27.03.2010, passed by the opposite party
no.3, contained in Annexure-5 to the
petition and the order dated 02.12.2011
passed by the opposite party no.4,
contained in Annexure-1 to the writ
petition, are hereby quashed. The opposite
party no.4 is hereby directed to examine
the claim of the petitioner in the light of
observations made herein above, within a
period of two months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN,J.
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA,J.

Government Appeal No. - 445 of 2011

State of U.P.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Ram Vriksha and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary (G.A.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
..................................................

Criminal
Appeal-against
acquittaloffence under Section 498-A, 304-B, 201
I.P.C.-acquittal
on
ground-none
of
prosecution witnesses-named as inquest
witnesses-crimination
by
police
as
unknown dead body-accused produced
Dr. Ram Sakal Singh who disposed the
deceased was suffering from cholera-DW
2 performed last rites in presence of
informant as well as accused persons
and other relatives-marriage Factum not
proved by producing marriage cardconsequentially
allegation
of
dowry
demand disbelieved-such findings can
not
be
said
to
be
perverse
or
unreasonable-Application
for
lese
to
appeal rejected.

Held: Para 6

Considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances of the case, we are
satisfied that the grounds for acquittal
mentioned by the trial Court cannot be
said to be perverse or unreasonable. It is
well settled law that evenwhere two
views are possible, the view taken by the
trial Court should not normally be
interfered with if the view taken is not
highly
improbable
or
unreasonable.
Hence no interference is called for in the
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the trial Court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran,J. )

1. Heard learned AGA and perused
the trial Court judgment and record.

2. This application for leave to
appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 4.10.2010,
passed
by
the
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Jaunpur
acquitting the accused respondents under
Sections 498A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and
Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. In this case, the FIR was
registered on the basis of an application
filed by the Soolan, father of the deceased
on 3.3.2008 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
In this case, some allegations of demand
of dowry of Rs.20,000/-, Hero Honda
Motorcycle, Gold Ring etc. have been
levelled against accused respondents. It is
alleged that the accused respondents,
namely,
Ramvriksh,
Jaybaran,
and
Firturam came to the house of the
informant on 17.6.2007 for taking away
Kiran (deceased) with them, they also
demanded for dowry. On the next day i.e.
on
18.6.2007,
the
informant
got
information that his daughter had been
murdered. Thereafter, the body of the
deceased was recovered in a sack, which
was claimed to have been identified by
the claimant to be of his daughter but as
no
case
was
registered,
hence
an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was given. The informant Soolan was not
examined in Court as he had become mad.
Only PW1-Vimla and PW-2 Ramvachan,
mother and brother of the deceased, have
been examined as witnesses of fact.

4. The trial Court has acquitted the
accused respondents on the ground that
even there was no material to indicate that
the so called dead body which was
recovered by the police, regarding which
an inquest was conducted on 20.6.2007
was that of the deceased. The reasons for
this finding was that the inquest was
conducted on an unknown body and postmortem was done on an unknown dead
body. The deceased was cremated by the
police and not by the informant and other
family members. The limbs of the dead
body were missing hence the claim of the
witnesses that there was a tatoo on her
arm facilitating identification appears to
be incorrect. The witnesses Vimla and
Ramvachan etc. were not shown as
witnesses of the inquest. The accused
respondents
have
led
evidence
by
producing DW1 Dr. Ram Shakal Singh,
who gave evidence that the deceased was
suffering from cholera as a result of
which she had died.
DW2 Malik
Chaudhary who performed the last rites
states that the informant and other
relations of the deceased were present
during the last rites. DW3-Chhotey Lal
has deposed that marriage had taken place
10 years earlier, therefore, the trial Court
recorded a finding that there was no proof
that the death of Kiran had taken place
within seven years of the marriage. Also
no marriage card had been produced for
proving this fact. Even the allegation of
dowry demand has been disbelieved by
the trial Court as the informant was not
produced. There were contradictions in
the statements of the witnesses in this
regard.

5. Learned AGA on the other hand
argued that the dead body of the deceased
was hurriedly disposed of after the
murder. There was sufficient evidence
1 All] Manjeet V. State of U.P.

137
against the accused respondents and the
trial Court has misread the evidence and
acquitted the accused respondents.

6. Considering the totality of the
circumstances of the case, we are satisfied
that the grounds for acquittal mentioned
by the trial Court cannot be said to be
perverse or unreasonable. It is well settled
law that evenwhere two views are
possible, the view taken by the trial Court
should not normally be interfered with if
the view taken is not highly improbable or
unreasonable. Hence no interference is
called for in the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the trial Court.

7. Accordingly, the Application for
Leave to Appeal is rejected and the Govt.
Appeal is also dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2009

Manjeet

 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Apul Misra
Sri P.N. Misra
Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal Appeal-conviction of 10 years
R.I. With fine of Rs. 10000/-for offence
under
Section
307
IPC-victim
and
Appellant both were friends-Appellant
while returning from Ram Lila offered
Buffalo race-on refusal by victim-verbal
triadic altercation took place-incident
occurred without any pre-mediation and
pre-plan-prosecution unable to point out
any circumstances otherwise-in view of
law laid down by Apex Court-conviction
10 years R.I. With fine of Rs. 10000/-
reduced to 5 years with 40000/-with
compensation of Rs. 25000/-payable to
victim.

Held: Para 26

Further if the evidence of the doctor is
looked into, it is clear that the shot was
fired from quite a distance as the
dispersal of the pellets is 38 cm x 28 cm.
Injured was advised for X-ray but the
prosecution has not brought forth the Xray to know the exact nature of injury
sustained
by
the
deceased.
It
is
categorical deposition of the doctor
(P.W. 5) that he had not prepared any
supplementary report in respect of the
victim. He had further deposed that he
had not extracted any pellets from the
body of the injured. In such a view,
looking
to
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances and also looking to the
fact that the appellant had no criminal
history nor he had got any criminal
proclivity and the crime was committed
in a heat of passion and loss of self
control and the period of a decade gone
by during intervening period, I consider
it appropriate to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment of the appellant from 10
years RI to 5 years RI but at the same
time enhance the fine imposed upon him
from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- and
award a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to
the victim P.W. 3.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2002 SC 485; AIR 1997 SC 361; AIR 2001
SC 1091

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J. )

1. Challenge in this appeal by the
sole
appellant
Manjeet
is
to
his
conviction under section 307 IPC and
imposed sentence of 10 years R.I. with