# State of U.P v. Satyapal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-21
- **Case number:** THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN. J. Government Appeal No. 434 of 2019
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-satyapal-ors-47844
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 498A, 323, 506, 376 & 406 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections3/4 - F.I.R. registred under Sections-
498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P.
Act,
with
allegation
that
Informant
wedded on 30.4.2011 with Manoj - her
husband died on 30.5.2013 leaving behind
their daughter, aged about one year and
four months - her parents had spent about
six lacks rupees in her marriage but after
marriage her in-laws were not happy with
the dowry - After death of her husband,
her brother-in-law (dewar) forcibly made
physical relations with her and continued
her sexual harassment including rape
upon her for many years - however P. W. 1
informant
in
her
cross
examination
admitted that after the death of her
husband she stayed back for about 5-6
months in her matrimonial home and she
was happy with the behaviour of her inlaws and other members of her family -
She
has
not
stated
in
her
cross
examination that demand of dowry was
made by any member of her husband's
family or any article or cash as additional
dowry - Held - after the death of Manoj, P.
W. 1 informant lived for a considerable
time in her matrimonial house and no
demand of any dowry was made nor rape
was
committed
upon
her
-
such
allegations have been levelled on refusal
by co-accused Bhagwan Das to give half of
land to the informant, P. W. 1. - In
previous complaint by informant P. W. 1
given at Mahila police station it was not
mentioned that after the marriage her in
laws and other members of their family
had
started
to
make
demand
for
additional dowry and on non-fulfilment of
demand she was subjected to torture or
was constantly beaten - In the application
details of dowry has not been given nor P.
W. 1 has given details of dowry in her
ocular evidence - leave to appeal refused -
government appeal dismissed (Para 17,
18)

Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
क्षजस समय यह मुक़दमा क्षलखाया गया था उस वक्त मेरी
उम्र 19 वषण थी अब 21 वषण है। धारा 164 द ० प्र०सिं० का
पूरा बयाि पढ़िे के बाद कहा गया है की इसमें जो बाते
क्षलखी हैं वे सब गलत है। मेरा पुक्षलस वाले दरोगा सक्षहत
थािे पर जो बयाि हुआ था वह भी मैिे चाचा भोले के
दबाव में क्षदया था। सािी सिं० 4 ड ० ईसा सोिी के द्वारा भी
मेक्षडकल परीिर् क्षकया गया है और मेक्षडकल परीिर्
करिे के उपरान्त यह कहा गया है की पीक्षड़ता का हाईमि
इन्टैक्ट था और उक्त क्षद्वतीय मेक्षडकल परीिर् क्षदिािंक
15.10.16 को हुआ है और प्रथम मेक्षडकल परीिर् ड ०
सिंगीता गुप्ता के द्वारा क्षदिािंक 13.10.16 को क्षकया गया था
और उिके द्वारा भी यह कहा गया है की शरीर पर कोई
बाहरी या अिंदरूिी चोट िहीिं थी। वह कपडे बदल चुकी
थी , िहा चुकी थी। ड क्टरी मुआयिा के खािा सिं० 15 अ
में पीक्षड़ता के बताये हुए कथि क्षलखे है। बलात्कार होिा
िहीिं बताया था। सािी सिं० 4 िे भी कहा है की पीक्षड़ता बार
बार कह रही थी की उसके साथ बलात्कार हुआ है क्षफर
कह रही थी की िहीिं हुआ। कहिे का तात्पयण है की क्षदिािंक
12.10.16 को राक्षि 10 बजे घटिा घक्षटत हुई है और
क्षदिािंक 13.10.16 को पीक्षड़ता का क्षचक्षकत्सीय परीिर्
03.00 बजे क्षदि में हुआ है। उस समय उसके शरीर पर
कोई बाह्य या अिंदरूिी चोट िहीिं पायी गयी थी। क्षदिािंक
15.10.16 को दोबारा मेक्षडकल परीिर् हुआ है, उसमें भी
हाईमि इन्टैक्ट था। सामान्यतः यक्षद क्षकसी के साथ
शारीररक सिंसगण काररत क्षकया जाता है तो हाईमि के
फटिे की सिाव्यता अत्यक्षधक रहती है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरर्
में यक्षद अक्षभयुक्त क्षफरोज द्वारा जबरदस्ती पीक्षड़ता के साथ
दुष्कमण क्षकया गया होता तो हाईमि इन्टैक्ट िहीिं होता वरि्
फटा हुआ पाया जाता। साथ ही पीक्षड़ता स्वयिं िे भी
न्यायालय में क्षकये गये बयाि में यह कहा है की मुलक्षजम
क्षफरोज िे घटिा की क्षतक्षथ व समय पर उसके साथ क्षकसी
प्रकार कोई गलत काम िहीिं क्षकया ि ही मुिंह में कपडा
ठूूँसा। अन्य सािीगर् के द्वारा भी यह कहा गया है की
उन्ें घटिा के बारे में पीक्षड़ता िे बताया था। यक्षद पीक्षड़ता
स्वयिं न्यायालय में घटिा काररत होिे से इिंकार कर रही है
तो क्षकस प्रकार उि लोगोिं को घटिा की जािकारी और
सत्यता का ज्ञाि हुआ, यह सन्देहास्प्रद प्रतीत होता है।"

36. The accused/respondent has stated
in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
that prior to alleged incident dispute with
regard to payment was existing and thus he
has been falsely implicated in this case.

37. Since victim, P.W.-2 has herself
admitted that pressure was exerted by her
uncle, to give evidence of alleged rape
against the accused/respondent, it lends
credence to the above referred statement of
the accused.

38. In the backdrop of above analysis
of evidence on record, doubt is created
regarding
the
authenticity
of
the
prosecution
case
against
the
accused/respondent. We find no worthy
evidence on record to prove the charges
against the accused.

39. From the above discussion, it is
concluded that the learned trial Court has
rightly
appreciated
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, as well as the
evidence on record hence we do not find
any illegality or material irregularity in the
impugned judgment and order and the same
is sustainable in eyes of law as it does not
suffers from perversity.

40. Thus, leave to appeal is refused
and in consequence the appeal stands
rejected.

41. Registry to return the record to the
Court below along with this order.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 492
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN. J.

Government Appeal No. 434 of 2019

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Satyapal & Ors. ...Accused-Respondents
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Satyapal & Ors.
493
Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 498A, 323, 506, 376 & 406 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections3/4 - F.I.R. registred under Sections-
498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P.
Act,
with
allegation
that
Informant
wedded on 30.4.2011 with Manoj - her
husband died on 30.5.2013 leaving behind
their daughter, aged about one year and
four months - her parents had spent about
six lacks rupees in her marriage but after
marriage her in-laws were not happy with
the dowry - After death of her husband,
her brother-in-law (dewar) forcibly made
physical relations with her and continued
her sexual harassment including rape
upon her for many years - however P. W. 1
informant
in
her
cross
examination
admitted that after the death of her
husband she stayed back for about 5-6
months in her matrimonial home and she
was happy with the behaviour of her inlaws and other members of her family -
She
has
not
stated
in
her
cross
examination that demand of dowry was
made by any member of her husband's
family or any article or cash as additional
dowry - Held - after the death of Manoj, P.
W. 1 informant lived for a considerable
time in her matrimonial house and no
demand of any dowry was made nor rape
was
committed
upon
her
-
such
allegations have been levelled on refusal
by co-accused Bhagwan Das to give half of
land to the informant, P. W. 1. - In
previous complaint by informant P. W. 1
given at Mahila police station it was not
mentioned that after the marriage her in
laws and other members of their family
had
started
to
make
demand
for
additional dowry and on non-fulfilment of
demand she was subjected to torture or
was constantly beaten - In the application
details of dowry has not been given nor P.
W. 1 has given details of dowry in her
ocular evidence - leave to appeal refused -
government appeal dismissed (Para 17,
18)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This government appeal has been
preferred against the judgement and order
dated 30.5.2019, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1,
(Crimes against Women), Aligarh in
Sessions Trial No. 246/2016, arising out of
Case Crime No. 296/2014, P. S.-Madrak,
district-Aligarh, whereby, he has acquitted
the accused-respondents of the charges
under Sections-498A, 506, 323, 376 and
406 I. P. C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act.

3. The prosecution story in brief runs
as under:

It is admitted fact that the
informant was wedded on 30.4.2011 with
Manoj and in that marriage her parents had
spent around six lacs rupees in dowry
expenses etc.; her husband Manoj, on
30.5.2013
died
leaving
behind
their
daughter, aged about one year and four
months.

4. P. W. 1 in her ocular evidence has
stated
that
on
presentation
of
her
application dated 1.11.2014 under Section
156 (3) Cr. P. C. in which the alleged
incident was stated to have occurred in the
month of June, 2014 present case being
Case Crime No. 296 of 2014, under
Sections- 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections3/4 of D. P. Act, was registered at
concerned police station and during her
deposition she identified her application
under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and also
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
admitted her signature thereon, as such, this
application was marked as Ext. Ka 1.

5. P. W. 1 in her examination-in-chief
has deposed that her parents had spent
about six lacks rupees in her marriage;
some dowry was also given to her husband
and in-laws but after marriage, they were
not happy with the dowry; She with her
daughter continued to live in her in-laws
house; After death of her husband, Satpal,
who happens to be her brother-in-law
(dewar) had proposed her to marry with
him and also said that he wants to lead his
life with her but in-laws would taunt her
that she wants to live as wife of Satpal
(dewar) and both in-laws would send their
son Satpal into her room and he forcibly
made physical relations with her and
continued her sexual harassment including
rape upon her for many years till she lived
there; she asked Satpal to fulfil his promise
to marry her as he committed rape upon her
continuously but on one or other pretext, he
did not marry her; in the month of June,
2014 in the presence of her in-laws, Satpal
(dewar), Yashoda sister-in-laws Neelam,
Nihala and Divya, she demanded Satpal to
marry her because by making false promise
to marry her, he had raped her for months
together, to which Nanad Divya intervened
and said that marriage with Satpal is
possible if she from her parents brings sixseven lacs rupees. She was also beaten and
asked her to turn out from the house but she
refused to leave her matrimonial house due
to discord; She was forced to sit in the car
and was left in the lurch out of the village.
In this backdrop, she lodged F. I. R. against
accused.

6. P. W. 1 informant in her entire
deposition has not uttered a single word of
any demand of dowry from her or any
member of her family. P. W. 1 informant in
her cross examination has stated that her
daughter was born after one year of the
marriage; she with her husband was living
happily and she stayed in her matrimonial
house; after three months of the death of
her husband, her father and other members
of family were called by the in-laws to their
house and she had left her matrimonial
home happily. Next she deposed that after
lapse of 5-6 months, she was happily sent
to her parental house and after passage of
ten days in her parental house, her dewar
Satpal came to take her to in-laws house;
since she was ill therefore, her father took
her to her matrimonial house thereafter.

7. P. W. 1 informant in her cross
examination has admitted that after the
death of her husband she stayed back for
about 5-6 months in her matrimonial home
and she was happy with the behaviour of
her in-laws and other members of her
family. She has not stated in her cross
examination that demand of dowry was
made by any member of her husband's
family or any article or cash as additional
dowry until the death of her husband; even
she has admitted that after 5-6 months of
the death of her husband she stayed in her
matrimonial house happily. As such, she
has not specifically stated that demand of
additional dowry was made by her in-laws
or any member of their family.

8. P. W. 2 Prithvi Singh who is father
of the informant P. W. 1, has stated in the
examination-in-chief that after the marriage
of her daughter with Manoj her in-laws,
nanad Neelam, Nihala and Divya, father-inlaw Babu Ram demanded two lacs and fifty
thousand rupees as additional dowry and on
its non-fulfilment, her daughter had told
him that she was subjected to harassment;
he had tried to persuade the aforementioned
persons but they did not budge.
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Satyapal & Ors.
495

9. P. W. 2 also has supported the
statement of P. W. 1 informant that inlaws
of her daughter had promised that they
shall marry their son Satpal with her after
consultation with the family members;
Satpal kept her daughter as his wife; on the
demand to marry her, Satpal refused and all
the members of the family of deceased
Manoj said that the marriage could be
solemnized if in the marriage 6-7 lacs
rupees are spent; Before three and half
years from the date of his deposition in the
trial court, family members of her husband
left her daughter and grand daughter
outside the village. As such, P. W. 2 in his
examination-in-chief has corroborated the
statement of his daughter P. W. 1.

10. Accused in their defence have
stated that informant and her parents were
exerting pressure to give them half of their
land to which, they did not agree, hence, they
have been falsely implicated in the present
case. P. W. 1 informant in her crossexamination has admitted that she had moved
an application with regard to the incident at
Mahila Thana one month before filing
application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C.
and in the context of that application she had
not told the Inspector about commission of
rape upon her by Satpal (dewar). She further
states that she has not told to Daroga about
rape because she wanted to save her in laws.
She has further admitted that at Mahila thana
she had given her statement on 12.7.2014 and
in her statement she had not told to Daroga
that her in-laws and other family members
(sasural wale) had made any demand for
additional dowry or in the garb of proposal to
marry with Satpal, he had committed rape
upon her. The complaint made by P. W. 1 is
on record as paper no. 18.

11. P. W. 1 informant has also
admitted to have recorded her statement
under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and relevant
portion of the statement during her
examination in the trial Court was read
over to her and in her reply she admitted
that in that statement it is not written that
in-laws or members of their family made
any demand for additional dowry. She also
admits in her statement under Section 164
Cr. P. C. that it is also not mentioned that
who used to send Satpal into her room. P.
W. 2 Prithvi Singh in his examinationinchief has stated that in-laws and other
family members made constant demand for
two lacs and fifty thousand as an additional
dowry and on its nonfulfillment her
daughter was subjected to physical torture.
On the other hand, in the application Ext.
Ka 1 and also P. W. 1 informant in her
examination-inchief has said that her inlaws and their family members used to
make demand of 6-7 lacs rupees as an
additional dowry.

12. P. W. 2 has admitted that within a
year after her daughter's marriage with
Manoj no demand for additional dowry was
made . Her daughter had not made any such
complaint in this regard. He also admits
that before presenting application under
Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. an application by
her daughter at the Mahila police station
was presented and in that application it is
not noted that demand of any dowry was
made from him or from her daughter by
inlaws or any member of her family.

13. P. W. 2 in his cross-examination
has feigned ignorance that in the complaint
made to Mahila police station it was not
written that demand of any dowry was
made and for non-fulfilment of demand of
dowry her daughter would be beaten and
her dewar, Satpal had committed rape upon
her daughter. Further, he has also pleaded
ignorance about the presentation of the
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint at the police station by saying
that he does not remember it. Again he has
pleaded ignorance about the application for
compromise
by
her
daughter
was
presented.

14. P. W. 2 has admitted in his crossexamination that panchayat was convened but
compromise could not have been arrived at
between them. After the panchayat he had said
that half of the land should be given to his
daughter but father-in-law of his daughter did
not agree to give half of his land to his daughter.
She also admits that on refusal her father-in-law
has said that he will keep his daughter and
grand daughter and he will take care of their
expenses. He also admits in his deposition that
he had also proposed to her father-in-law that if
he is not ready to give her share, he should
marry his son with his daughter. He has also
stated that her father-in-law had spurned his
proposal with regard to marriage saying since
informant (his daughter-in-law) is the sister-inlaw (bhabhi) of his son, therefore, he cannot
marry his son with his bhabhi.

15. It is evident from the evidence of P.
W. 1 and P. W. 2 that not only their statements
with regard to the alleged rape and demand of
additional dowry are inconsistent with each
other but also self contradictory because if rape
was continuously committed by Satpal and
demand of additional dowry was made, then
such allegations should have been mentioned in
the complaint of P. W. 1, informant, which was
admittedly presented at Mahila police station
before the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.
P. C. was filed, it appears that such allegations
have been made in the application Ext. Ka 1
later on, which are result of afterthought and
improvement.

16. There is also contradictory evidence
of P. W. 1, informant and P. W. 2 to the effect
that informant was forced by her in-laws to
enter into physical relationship with Satpal and
also about the averment that her in-laws had
promised her to marry their son Satpal with her
and on such assurance, she got ready to have
physical relationship with him.

17. It appears from the above
discussion that after the death of Manoj, P.
W. 1 informant lived for a considerable
time in her matrimonial house and no
demand of any dowry was made nor rape
was
committed
upon
her.
Evidence
regarding such allegations is admitted to
have been levelled on the strength of
refusal by co-accused Bhagwan Das to give
half of land to the informant, P. W. 1. In
previous complaint by informant P. W. 1
given at Mahila police station it was also
not mentioned that after the marriage her in
laws and other members of their family had
started to make demand for additional
dowry and on non-fulfilment of demand
she was subjected to torture or was
constantly beaten, therefore, such evidence
of the informant and P. W. 2 is an
afterthought which cannot be relied upon in
view of the provisions of Evidence Act. P.
W. 1 informant and P. W. 2 have also not
deposed with regard to the allegations of
abuse and threat.

18. In the application Ext. Ka 1
details of dowry has not been given nor P.
W. 1 and P. W. 2 have given details of
dowry in their ocular evidence.

19. Rest of the witnesses are formal in
nature and thus have proved FIR chik, copy
of G. D., site plan and charge-sheet charges
cannot be proved unless there is cogent and
trustworthy ocular evidence of witnesses of
facts.

20.

Learned
trial
court
has
evaluated the evidence on record in
11 All. Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
497
detail and has fond that there are
material contradictions in the deposition
of informant and P. W. 2 and there is no
cogent evidence on record to prove the
charges for offences under Sections
498A, 323, 506, 376 and 406 I. P. C. and
Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act.

21. It is incumbent upon the
prosecution to prove the charges against the
accused-respondent
beyond
reasonable
doubt, which it has miserably failed.

22. We are not in agreement with the
contentions raised on behalf of the Stateappellant that by the impugned judgement
and order trial court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record or the
impugned judgement and order is perverse
and erroneous in the eyes of law and is not
sustainable.

23. Hence, the trial court has not erred
in law by acquitting the respondents,
therefore, impugned judgement and order is
liable to be upheld and is accordingly
upheld.

24. The leave to appeal is refused;
consequently,
the
instant
government
appeal is dismissed.

25. Record of lower court along with
certified copy of this order be sent to the
court concerned forthwith for necessary
action.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 497
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2022
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 400 of 2020 (O&M)

Om Prakash Srivastava ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramanand Pandey, (Standing Counsel),
Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra

A. Civil Law - Concealment of Material
Facts - An applicant who does not come
with candid facts and "clean breast"
cannot hold a writ of the court with
"soiled
hands".
Suppression
or
concealment of material facts is not an
advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation,
maneuvering or misrepresentation, which
has no place in equitable and prerogative
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose
all the material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads the
court, the court has inherent power in order to
protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its
process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to
proceed further with the examination of the
case on merits. If the court does not reject the
petition on that ground, the court would be
failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant
requires to be dealt with for contempt of court
for abusing the process of the court. (Para 17)

B. Anyone who takes recourse to method
of suppression in a court of law, is, in
actuality, playing fraud with the court,
and the maxim suppressio veri, expression
faisi, i.e., suppression of the truth is
equivalent to the expression of falsehood,
gets attracted. (Para 7)

In the present case, sole argument raised by
the appellant is that the writ petition was filed
by the respondents concealing material facts
regarding number of cases filed by respondent
no. 5-the writ petitioner claiming the same relief
which had travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
Some
of
the
writ
petitions
filed