# The State of U.P v. Ativeer Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 732
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-02
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 2416 of 1997
- **Bench:** Siddharth Varma, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-state-of-u-p-v-ativeer-singh-ors-52434
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 378 (3) - appeal
against acquittal, Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 498 -A - Husband or
relative of husband of a woman subjecting
her to cruelty, 304 - B - Dowry Death ,
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-A
- Presumption as to abetment of suicide
by a married woman , Section 113-B -
Presumption as to dowry death
-
Presumption of Innocence - The accused
is presumed innocent until proven guilty ,
Presumption of Acquittal - The trial court's
acquittal
reinforces,
reaffirms,
and
strengthens
the
presumption
of
innocence. (Para - 47)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Evidence
Review in Acquittal Appeals & Importance
of proof over suspicion - An appellate
court has the power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against
acquittal - Suspicion, howsoever grave
cannot take the place of proof and the
prosecution case to succeed has to be in
the category of "must be" and not "may
be" a distance to be covered by way of
clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence
to rule out any possibility of wrongful
conviction of the accused and resultant
miscarriage of justice. (Para -47)

Acquittal of respondents under challenge - trial
court acquitted respondents due to lack of
evidence - Prosecution failed to prove demand
of dowry and cruelty against deceased - Death
of deceased not proven to be unnatural -
benefit of presumption under Section 113-A and
113-B IPC not extended to prosecution side.
(Para - 1 to 4)

HELD: - Trial court acquitted the appellants
based on evidence on record, which was not
based on surmises or contradictions. Trial
court's acquittal verdict justified. Main grounds
for acquittal were highly belated FIR, lack of
allegations of dowry or matrimonial cruelty,
doubtful circumstances surrounding viscera
examination, and the inability to ascertain the
cause of death in postmortem examination.
Evidence regarding appellants' demand of dowry
and matrimonial cruelty to be discrepancy and
untrustworthiness,
making
it
difficult
to
determine if the death was unnatural or
homicidal. (Para - 45,46)

Government Appeal & Criminal Revision
dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Khekh Ram Vs Himachal Pradesh, AIR SC 2018
5255

## Text

_Characters 0–39,904 of 60,337. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39904 for what follows._

732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
(iv)
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.
(v)
If
two
reasonable
conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the
appellate court should not distrub the
finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial court."

93. Thus, it is beyond the pale of
doubt that the scope of interference by an
appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of
the accused has to be exercised within the four
corners of the following principles:-

(i). That the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(ii). That the same is based on
a misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record;
(iii). That no two reasonable
views are possible and only the view
consistent with the guilt of the accused
is possible from the evidence available
on record.

94. The appellate Court, in order to
interfere with the judgment of acquittal, would
have to record pertinent findings on the above
factors, if it is inclined to reverse the judgment
of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.

95. In our opinion, the trial court has
passed a well reasoned and detailed order,
which, in view of settled principle of law
regarding reversal of acquittal, needs no
interference by this Court. The view taken by
the trial court cannot be said to be perverse,
impossible and illegal and, as such, present
Government Appeal filed by the State has no
force and is accordingly dismissed.

96. Trial court's record be remitted
back forthwith.

97. Let a copy of this judgment and
order be forwarded to the court concerned
alongwith the trial court record for the
information and necessary compliance.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 732
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Government Appeal No. 2416 of 1997
&
Criminal Revision No. 1370 of 1997

The State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Ativeer Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
8 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Ativeer Singh & Ors.
733
Sri V.S. Misra, A.G.A., Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, Sri
G.S. Chaturvedi, Sri Samit Gopal, Sri Tej Pal, Sri
V.S. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Devendra Dahma, Sri A.D. Giri, Sri Apul
Mishra, Sri Lav Srivastava, Sri P.N. Mishra, Sri
S.D.N. Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 378 (3) - appeal
against acquittal, Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 498 -A - Husband or
relative of husband of a woman subjecting
her to cruelty, 304 - B - Dowry Death ,
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-A
- Presumption as to abetment of suicide
by a married woman , Section 113-B -
Presumption as to dowry death
-
Presumption of Innocence - The accused
is presumed innocent until proven guilty ,
Presumption of Acquittal - The trial court's
acquittal
reinforces,
reaffirms,
and
strengthens
the
presumption
of
innocence. (Para - 47)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Evidence
Review in Acquittal Appeals & Importance
of proof over suspicion - An appellate
court has the power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against
acquittal - Suspicion, howsoever grave
cannot take the place of proof and the
prosecution case to succeed has to be in
the category of "must be" and not "may
be" a distance to be covered by way of
clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence
to rule out any possibility of wrongful
conviction of the accused and resultant
miscarriage of justice. (Para -47)

Acquittal of respondents under challenge - trial
court acquitted respondents due to lack of
evidence - Prosecution failed to prove demand
of dowry and cruelty against deceased - Death
of deceased not proven to be unnatural -
benefit of presumption under Section 113-A and
113-B IPC not extended to prosecution side.
(Para - 1 to 4)

HELD: - Trial court acquitted the appellants
based on evidence on record, which was not
based on surmises or contradictions. Trial
court's acquittal verdict justified. Main grounds
for acquittal were highly belated FIR, lack of
allegations of dowry or matrimonial cruelty,
doubtful circumstances surrounding viscera
examination, and the inability to ascertain the
cause of death in postmortem examination.
Evidence regarding appellants' demand of dowry
and matrimonial cruelty to be discrepancy and
untrustworthiness,
making
it
difficult
to
determine if the death was unnatural or
homicidal. (Para - 45,46)

Government Appeal & Criminal Revision
dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Khekh Ram Vs Himachal Pradesh, AIR SC 2018
5255

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Instant Government Appeal and
Criminal Revision have arisen out of same
judgment and order dated 08.07.1997
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge, Aligarh in S.T.
No.834 of 1993 State Vs. Ativeer Singh
and three others and S.T. No. 642 of 1994
State Vs. Udai Pratap Singh, Case Crime
No.62 of 1993, Police Station Sikandara
Rau , then District Aligarh under Section
498-A and 304-B of IPC. By the impugned
order learned trial court has disposed of
both the connected sessions trial and
acquitted all the accused persons namely
Udai Pratap Singh, Ativeer Singh Chauhan,
Smt. Vimlesh, Kumari, Archana and Ajai
Pratap Singh for charges under sections
498-A and 304-B IPC.

2. From perusal of the record it
appears that respondent No.1 Ativeer Singh
died during the pendency of instant
Criminal Government Appeal and Appeal
was directed to be abated, qua respondent
No.1 vide order dated 27.05.2015 passed
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by this Court. Similarly respondent No.2
Smt. Vimlesh in instant Government
Appeal also died during the pendency of
appeal, and vide order dated 06.04.2022 the
Government Appeal was directed to be
abated in respect of said respondent No.2
Smt. Vimlesh. Thus the instant Government
Appeal and Criminal Revision have been
heard in respect of respondent Nos. 3,4,
and 5 namely Kumari Archana, Ajai Pratap
Singh and Udai Pratap Singh.

3. Heard learned A.G.A. Sri Rahul
Asthana counsel for the appellant-State and
Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Ranjan
Mishra,
for
appellant-State,
learned
Counsel
appearing
for
Revisionist/complainant
Sri
Devendra
Dhama Advocate was heard on behalf of
respondent Nos.3 to 5.

4. Learned trial court recorded
acquittal of the accused appellants with a
finding that by prosecution evidence the
allegation of demand of dowry and
practicing cruelty against the deceased has
not been proved. It is also not proved that
death of deceased occurred in unnatural
circumstances, therefore the benefit of
presumption under Section 113-A and 113B IPC cannot be extended to the
prosecution side.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and order Government
Appeal may file on behalf of the State as
Government Appeal No.2416 of 1997 State
Vs. Ativeer Singh and others under Section
378(3) Cr.P.C. and subsequently a Criminal
Revision
was
also
filed
by
the
informant/defacto complainant Narendra
Pal Singh in Criminal Revision No.2717 of
1997 Narnedra Pal Singh Vs. Udai Pratap
Singh and four others. As the said
government appeal and criminal revision
have arisen out of same relief has been
sought therein. Both of these are being
disposed of by this common judgment.

6. The factual matrix of the case in
brief are that the informant Narendra Pal
Singh who was posted as Chief Food
Inspector in the office of Chief Medical
Officer, Aligarh by moving a written report
bearing dated 04.03.1993 with an averment
that on 15.02.1993 he was busy in official
work at around 3:00 pm. One Dr. Vyas who
was posted in PHC Sikandara Rau as
Incharge came to him and asked him to
come alongwith him to Sikandara Rau, but
due to rush of work he expressed his
inability to move alongwith him, thereupon
Dr. Vyas left his office at 05:00 pm. On
same day at around 08:00 pm one Sri M.P.
Sharma, Health Inspector Sikandara Rau
came to him with some other person at his
residence and asked him to go Sikandara
Rau because his daughter's condition was
serious. On hearing this the informant
immediately asked one Bijendra Swaroop,
Sanatory Supervisor to approach Sri M.P.
Sharma and discern the real facts to which
Sri M.P. Sharma informed said Bijendra
Swaroop that the daughter of informant had
passed away. No information was given to
the informant regarding death of his
daughter from her husband and inlaws. He
got flabbergasted on hearing sudden death
of his daughter and came to his residence at
Agra and reached Sikandara Rau alongwith
his wife and son at around 12:00 night. He
visited the matrimonial place of his
daughter where he found his daughter in
dead condition. Her tongue was stucked
between the teeth, her lips had become blue
and blood was coagulated under the lips.
When he asked about the state of things,
they told that she was caught by light fever
and was vomiting, but her in-laws avoided
8 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Ativeer Singh & Ors.
735
to give true reasons of her death. Her
daughter Alpana Singh was married to Udai
Pratap Singh, son of Ativeer Singh
Chauhan on 24.04.1992 at Kaushalpur,
Agra at the place of informant, her husband
and
father-in-law
had
made
several
demands prior to the marriage and even
after solemnization of marriage they were
insisting to fulfill the shortage of dowry.
The
informant
had
already
given
Rs.75,000/- cash, valuables and ornaments
in the marriage. The husband and in-laws
of the deceased were continued to maintain
the demand of Maruti Car even after
marriage and due to non-fulfillment of
demand of additional dowry they subjected
her to maltreatment and cruelty. Father-inlaw of the deceased asked the informant to
get a Computer Center opened for husband
of the deceased, as he was master in
computer science, but due to financial
constraints he could not fulfill his this
demand also. He had purchased a plot in
Agra in the name of his daughter Alpana
and original deed was already handed over
to the husband of the deceased. However,
he was insisting that the said plot be
transferred in his name, but deceased was
not agreed upon this. He had informed the
local police, the factum of her suspicious
death and on his information, the police of
Sikandara Rau had got the postmortem on
the dead body of the deceased conducted
on 16.02.1993. From postmortem report it
was revealed that death of deceased was
unnatural
and
suspicious,
he
firmly
believed that his daughter was killed by her
husband Udai Pratap Singh, father-in-law
Ativeer Singh Chauhan, mother-in-law
Vimlesh, brother in law Ajai and sister-inlaw
Kumari
Archana
(nanad)
by
administering poison to her in concerted
manner. The police failed to take any action
inspite of previous written report submitted
to him by the informant, therefore, he had
to file a written report with Superintendent
of Police, on which FIR was lodged on
16.03.1993 at 09:20 am, which is exhibited
as Ext. Ka-20 on record. The police
investigated the case and recorded the
statements of the witnesses sent the viscera
of the deceased for chemical examination
and submitted chargesheet against all the
five named accused persons under Section
498-A and 304-B IPC.

7. In postmortem report dated
16.02.1993 no internal or external injury
was found on person of the deceased. As
cause of death could not be ascertained,
viscera
was
preserved.
In
viscera
examination
report
dated
04.03.1993
Aluminum Phosphide poison was found in
chemical
examination
carried
out
at
Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra.

8. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence
after compliance of provisions under
Section 307 Cr.P.C. committed to the court
of session for trial.

9. Learned Special Judge, Aligarh
framed charge under Sections 498-A and
304-B IPC against all the five accused
persons on two different dates. The accused
persons pleaded not guilty to it and claimed
for trial.

10. The learned trial court
examined
PW1
Narendra
Pal
Singh
complainant/father of the deceased, PW2
Veerpal Singh the mediator in the marriage
of the deceased and Udai Pratap Singh,
PW3 Kaushal Kumari mother of the
deceased, PW4 Dr. R.P. Gupta who carried
postmortem examination on the body of the
deceased, PW5 Deputy S.P. Yashwant
Singh the Investigating Officer, PW6
O.N.Dixit conducted inquest on person of
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the deceased on 16.02.1993 and proved the
inquest report as Ext. Ka-12. PW7
Constable Rajvir Singh carried the body of
the deceased from place of inquest to
postmortem house.

11. PW8 Head Constable H.C.
Guru Prasad is author or Chik FIR dated
19.03.1993, time 08:20 hours and extracts
of G.D. of P.S. Sikandara Rau regarding
registration of case and proved the
documents as Ext. Ka 18 and 19
respectively.

12. Learned trial judge recorded
the statements of the accused persons under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. after conclusion of
prosecution evidence. The defence case
was taken in statement of Ativeer Singh,
the father-in-law of the deceased in which
he stated that deceased died due to illness
and he immediately informed the father of
the deceased regarding her death. The
deceased was happy in her matrimonial
home and there was cordial relationship
between complaint side and accused. This
case was instituted only to blackmail the
accused side. The accused Udai Pratap
Singh has stated that he was under going
studies in M.Sc. at Aligarh at the time of
incident. Accused Ajai Pratap Singh stated
that as informant was posted in Health
Department, he manipulated the things and
obtained wrong viscera report by tampering
with the documents at Aligarh and Agra.
Similar statements were also given by other
accused persons. The defene examined Dr.
Chandra Prakash as DW1 who testified that
he treated the deceased on date of her death
at Sikandara Rau Hospital at 11 to 12 hours
in the day. On the request of Ativeer Singh,
father-in-law of the deceased, he did not
find any symptoms of poisoning on her
person. She was unconscious, he found
symptoms of Epileptic attack on patient
and had given her treatment, Dr. Vyas was
also there he visited the patient again on
that day at 05:00 pm, but by the time he
reached there, she collapsed.

13. DW2 Pravendra Pal Singh was
Gram Pradhan of his village, he also played
role of mediator in the marriage of
deceased and husband and testified that
Aplana Singh died due to illness.

14. DW3 Dr. V.R. Vyas testified
that he was posted as Incharge at PHC
Sikandara Rau on 15.02.1993 and was
acquainted with the complainant and
accused Ativeer Singh. He visited patient
Alpana on the request of her father-in-law
on 15.02.1993 at around 08:00 am and
examined her. He also stated that he had
treated the deceased Alpana Singh on
fateful day in the morning at around 08:00
am and noticed symptoms of trampoline.
He had noticed convulsion and nausea and
on that basis he found that it is a case of
Epileptic attack. He prescribed Epilepsy
drugs to her and prescription was prepared
by him on which Et. Kha 54 has been
marked. He advised Ativeer Sigh at around
11:30 hours to her visited by Dr. Chandra
Prakash Gupta, and Dr. Chandra Prakash
Gupta visited the patient in his presence
who also found it a case of Epilepsy and
advised for requisite treatment. Thereafter
he moved to Aligarh for personal work and
Ativeer Singh told her to inform his
Samdhi
(Narendra
Pal
Singh
DW1)
regarding condition of his daughter and
asked him to visit his place. He met M.P.
Sharma at Aligarh and asked him to come
to Sikandara Rau, he told him that his son
will visit the place of his daughter, he did
not treat the information seriously. In cross
examination the witnesses stated that
accused Ativeer Singh resided in a quarter
in hospital compound at Sikandara Rau, he
8 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Ativeer Singh & Ors.
737
was having official relations with him. On
15.02.1993 he had spoken to patient Alpana
Singh
about
her
Epilepsy
history,
whereupon she denied any epilepsy history.
It would be wrong to say that she was
unconscious,
he
stated
that
on
administration of Aluminium Phosphide,
the
patient
suffers
from
vomiting,
drowsiness, chest pain and froth emerging
from mouth.

15. DW4, Hitendra Pratap is
nephew (sister's son of accused Ativeer
Singh) has stated that he studied at the
place of his maternal uncle (Ativeeer
Singh) after Class V and he usually visits
him now and then. He proved certain letters
purportedly written by accused Udai Pratap
Singh and proved his signature thereon, on
which Ext. Kha 55 and Kha 56 was
marked. He also proved letters as Ext. Kha39 and 40 being written and signed by
accused Archana Singh.

16. DW6 Dr. Salauddin stated that
he was posted at Jain Medical College,
Aligarh as Medical Officer, he filed death
certificate of one patient Jai Kishore son of
Harishankar resident of Maurya Nagar, P.S.
Khair, District Aligarh being prepared in
handwriting of Dr. Asif Hussain and stated
that he was acquainted with writing of said
doctor. Ext. Kha-1 was marked on said
death certificate of Jail Kishore. He brought
this death certificate from casualty ward of
medical college, he also produced case
sheet of said patient on which Casualty
No.1994 Case No.1888/M/93 was entered.
The witnesses stated that he signed this
case sheet in place of C.M.O. This paper
was also marked as Ext. Kha by DW4.
According to witness the patient stated the
he had consumed poison, both the doctors
who prepared death certificate and case
sheet of said patient Jai Kishore were alive.
In case sheet, suspected poisoning case is
written in death certificate of Jai Kishore,
Aluminium
Phosphide
is
written
Aluminium Phosphide poison affects the
respiratory system. In death certificate PCF
is
written
which
means
peripheral
circulatory failure.

17. DW7 Dr. Asif Hussain is
author of death certificate of one deceased
Jai Kishore aged about 24 years, who died
on 13.02.1993 at 02:35 am at Medical
College Aligarh, this certificate was also
proved by evidence of Salauddin DW6.
This was a case of Aluminium Phosphide
poisoning. The witnesses has stated that he
had given treatment to Jai Kishore along
with his senior Dr. R.U. Khan and Dr.
Mohd. (SIC). Aluminium Phosphide poison
causes formation of gas.

18. DW8 Sri S C Sharma was
accountant of T.B. Clinic Malkhan Singh
Hospital Aligarh on the date of incident, he
proved carbon copy of postmortem report
of said Jai Kishore in absence of its author
Dr. Vinay Kumar Yadav and filed copy of
postmortem report dated 13.02.1993 which
was in handwriting of Dr. Vinay Kumar
Yadav. The witness stated that according to
postmortem report the viscera of Jai
Kishore was preserved in Jar No.25 and 26,
on which Ext. Kha-24 was marked. The
witness expressed ignorance about mode
and manner of preservation of viscera.

19. Amongst prosecution witnesses
PW1 Narendra Pal Singh is author of
written report dated 16.03.1993 being its
author and formed basis of lodging of chik
FIR Ext. Ka-18. He also proved letter dated
06.07.1992 and 15.01.1993 having in
handwriting of his deceased daughter
Alpana, on which Ext. Ka- 1 and 2 was
marked. He stated that she had received
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
education up to M.A., B.Ed. and he was
acquainted with her handwriting and
signature. He married his daughter Alpana
to
accused
Udai
Pratap
Singh,
on
29.04.1992 at his residence situated at
Agra. She was send off to her matrimonial
home after marriage and accused persons
had refused to take her alongwith them
initially due to non giving of Maruti car as
per their demand, and they agreed to take
her with them only on repeated request and
ultimately assurance of the witness to fulfill
their demand in future. She came back to
her parental home after eight days of her
Vidai. The witness and his son used to visit
her on festive occasions and whenever any
of his family member visit her, the accused
person would tease them due to nonfulfillment of their demand of car. She had
narrated the misbehavious and torture
meted out to her by her in-laws due to
demand of dowry. He repeatedly requested
the accused persons to restrain from
torturing her, but they did not relent. She
only lived for 9 and half months after
marriage.

20. On 15.02.1993 Dr. V.R. Vyas
visited him at his office and asked him to
come to Sikandara Rau, but did not
disclose anything regarding his daughter
and in the evening of that day at around
08:00 pm M.P. Sharma, Health Inspector
Sikandara Rau visited him at his residence
in Aligarh and told him that they should go
to Sikandara Rau as condition of his
daughter was serious. Subsequently Sri
M.P. Sharma disclosed the factum of death
of his daughter to his colleague of Vijendra
Swaroop. He rushed to Agra alongwith
Vijendra Swaroop to the place of accused
persons at 12:30 in the night, where
deadbody of his daughter was kept in the
Varanda of their house. All the family
members of Ativeer Singh were present
there, but when he asked her for cause of
death they avoided, and on further query
they became apologetic to him. On hearing
all these things he believed that death of his
daughter was not natural and suspicious.
He moved an application at P.S. Sikandara
Rau which was written by his son Anil
Kumar who is present, on which Ext. Ka-3
was marked. On this information inquest
and postmortem examination on dead body
of the deceased was carried out at the
instance of police. He became shocked due
to dowry death of his daughter, which he
had to be admitted by doctors at Malkhan
Singh Hospital where his son and wife
were remained with him, due to his son
illness none of his family members
participate in postmortem and cremation of
his daughter. He waited for 15 days for
police action in the matter and when no
police official visited him, he moved
written report of the incident on 04.03.1993
through registered post to SSP Aligarh and
other by police and administrative officers.
The witness proved a typed copy of said
written
report
bearing
his
signature,
although the typed copy of the said written
report was objected by counsel for the
defence. In cross examination the witness
stated that accused Ativeer Singh was
serving at PHC Sikandara Rau on the post
of Health Educational Officer, his one
daughter was already married and the other
daughter was Archana was unmarried. The
witness was confronted with letter dated
04.01.1993 which he acknowledged to the
writing of his son Anil, on which Ext. Kha1 was marked and on which Ext. Kha-2
was marked during cross examination. A
number of letters were produced before the
witness during cross examination from the
side of accused, which were written and
signed by his family members on which
Ext. Kha-3 to Ext. Kha 24 was marked. The
witness acknowledged certain photographs
8 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Ativeer Singh & Ors.
739
of
deceased
daughter
Alpana
Singh
together with her female friends, husband
and relatives. He was admitted in hospital
for one day and next day he was
discharged. He was told by police that
viscera of his deceased daughter had been
preserved and will be send for examination.
He had got the written report typed at Civil
Court Agra and signed it and send the
report
by
registered
post
to
Senior
Superintendent of Police. He had send two
written reports/applications to S.S.P. and on
second application FIR was lodged. On
report dated 16.02.1993 he requested for
postmortem of the dead body of his
daughter to ascertain the real cause of
death. In that report no prayer was made to
lodge an FIR, as he did not apprehend that
her
daughter
was
done
away
by
administering poison to her. He thought
that when police officials will undertake
inquiry he would tell them the entire facts.
He had not moved any application prior to
04.03.1993 for initiating actions against
accused persons. He visited the police
station only once between 16.03.1993 to
04.03.1993, the witness denied the defence
suggestion that he had changed the viscera
in collusion of doctor and staff of Malkhan
Singh Hospital and when he become
certain that viscera had been changed only
then he moved an application for lodging
an FIR bearing date 04.03.1993.

21. Dr. V.R. Vyas remained with
him for three hours from the date of
incident. During his travel from Sikandara
Rau to Agra alongwith family after being
apprised of death of his daughter, nobody
stated that she was killed due to demand of
dowry. The apprehension of dowry death
occurred in his mind when he gave a report
to the police on reaching the place of
incident, but he did not narrate this fact in
his first report, as he thought that the
picture would be clear after postmortem
examination. He had not written the
allegation of demand of dowry or cruelty
against the accused persons in first report.
The
witness
also
acknowledged
his
signature on inquest report. He had not told
anything to Darogaji with regard to
allegation of demand of dowry or causing
death of his daughter by accused persons,
as he was not in his senses at that time. On
inquest report, opinion of Panchas is
written in his writing, on which Ext. Kha27 was marked. The police personnel told
him that there was no visible injury on dead
body. He is not certain as to who had
administered poison to his daughter, but all
the accused persons had poisoned him.

22. In Pradarsha Kha-3 he had
made a request to S.O. Sikandara Rau to
get
postmortem
examination
of
his
daughter and he did not named any accused
person. This application was moved on
16.02.1993
he
thought
that
after
postmortem examination he will reveal all
the
facts
before
police.
Both
the
applications
dated
04.03.1993
and
11.03.1993 filed by him were same. The
investigating officer had recorded his
statement after 1 1⁄4 months.

23. Veerpal Singh was mediator of
marriage of his deceased daughter to whom
daughter of the cousin of his brother-in-law
was married. Ativeer Singh had stated
regarding dowry objection just one month
prior to the marriage before Veerpal Singh.
He did not state this facts in both the
applications
dated
04.03.1993
and
11.03.1993. In these applications, he has
not stated that his daughter would tell the
fact of dowry harassment to him when she
visited him. He had told this fact to
investigating officer (C.O) that Veerpal
Singh, was mediator in the marriage, but he
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had not written this fact in his statement, he
may not tell its reason. He has also not
written this fact in his written reports that if
he paid Rs.75,000/- in cash to accused
persons in presence of Veerpal Singh, his
deceased daughter had never asked him to
refrain from interfering in family matters of
accused. She never fell ill prior to marriage.
It would be wrong to say that she died
natural death, his daughter visited his place
4 to 5 times after marriage.

24. PW2 Veerpal Singh has stated
that he is acquainted with accused persons
as well as the informant. He mediated the
marriage of Udai Pratap Singh and
deceased Alpana. The accused Ativeer
Singh told him that his son was posted as a
teacher in Kasganj Degree College. He got
the marriage of deceased and Udai Pratap
Singh settled on getting consent of both
sides. Ativeer Singh raised demand of
dowry, prior to marriage in his presence
and also demanded maruti car, to which
Narendra Pal Singh expressed its inability.
He met the deceased 1 to 2 times after
marriage in Agra, and wherein she
requested him to ask his father for maruti
car as demanded by the accused side. He
did not participate in Tilak Ceremony of
deceased. The deceased had stated that the
accused had fired the maid servant and she
had to perform all household chores, the
accused were demanding maruti car.

25. PW3 Smt. Kaushal Kumari,
mother of the deceased who corroborated
the statement in chief of PW1 in her sworn
testimony before the Court and testified
regarding demand of dowry, practicing of
matrimonial cruelty, torture and causing of
dowry death of deceased Alpana by
accused persons. She stated that Veerpal
Singh mediated the marriage of deceased
and accused Udai Pratap Singh. Her
husband told him that groom side was
demanding Rs.75,000/- from him. It would
be wrong to say that her daughter would
often complain regarding stomach ache,
she was her youngest child. Accused were
pressurizing her husband to give them a car
as dowry.

26. PW4 Dr. R.P. Gupta is author
of postmortem report on dead body of the
deceased, which is proved by his evidence
as Ext. Ka-9. He stated that death of
deceased might have occurred in the noon
on 15.02.1993. The death occurred one day
earlier to postmortem which was conducted
by him on 16.02.1993 at Malkhan Singh
Hospital, as cause of death could not be
ascertained. He preserved viscera for
chemical examination, no mark of external
injury
was
seen.
Both
lungs
were
congested, stomach contains ounce watery
matter,
mucous
membrane
congested,
spleen
and
kidney
were
congested,
abdomen was distended, heart was partly
filled, two ounce liquid matter was found in
stomach. The viscera was preserved in Jar
No.25 and 26. The witness also filed
postmortem report of one Jai Kishore,
which is authored by Dr. Vinay Kumar
Yadav, who was posted in T.B. Hospital,
which is situated in the compound of
Malkhan
Singh
Hospital.
In
this
postmortem report also it is stated that
viscera was preserved in Jar No.25 and 26,
on which Postmortem Report 117 of 1993
dated 13.02.1996 alongwith name and
address of deceased is written. The witness
filed a carbon copy of postmortem report of
deceased Jai Kishore during his evidence,
he stated that when the doctor finds it
necessary to preserve viscera he takes jar
from mortuary which is maintained by
police hospital, the jar is kept in custody of
pharmacist of police hospital. The person
who was on duty had told him the number
8 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Ativeer Singh & Ors.
741
of Jars as 25 and 26, he had signed the
Register while deposing the Jar containing
viscera nausea is found in case of Epileptic.
It would be wrong to say that as M.P. Singh
was subordinate to C.M.O. a tampering was
done in viscera on asking of C.M.O and
M.P. Singh. It would also be wrong to say
that the witness had sent viscera of some
other person in place of viscera of Alpana,
he is not able to disclosed the name of staff
to whom he deposited the jar. The number
of jar containing viscera is entered at
relevant time as disclosed by staff on duty.
The number which is told by staff is
entered on jar.

27. PW5 Deputy S.P. Yashwant
Singh is investigating officer of the case
and he has proved site plan of place of
occurrence in his signature as Ext. Ka-10
and chargesheet being in his signature as
Ext. Ka-11, these papers were prepared by
SI O.N. Dixit on his dictation. The witness
stated that witness Smt. Kaushal Kumari
had not stated to him that when her
husband visited his daughter to give gifts of
Rakshabandhan they were pressurized for
giving car. She has also not stated to him
that when she visited her daughter her lips
and nails became blue and tongue was
stucked between the teeth. The witness
reiterated the proceedings of investigation
in his evidence.

28. PW6 SI O.N. Dixit carried out
inquest on dead body of Alpana deceased
on 16.02.1993 at 04:20 am at official
residence of accused Atveer Singh in the
campus of CSC Sikandara Rau. Witness
proved inquest report Ext. Ka-12, Chalan
Nash Ext. Ka-13, Photo Nash Ext. Ka-14
subsequent letters as Ext. Ka-15, letter to
C.M.O. Ext. Ka-16, letter to R.I. as Ext.
Ka-17 being in his handwriting and
signature. The tongue of deceased was
stucked between teeth. The parents of the
deceased and accused persons were present
during inquest proceedings.

29. PW7 Constable Rajvir Singh
has stated that body was handed over to
him for postmortem examination by S.I.
O.N. Dixit for inquest proceedings and he
who carried the dead body to postmortem
house
alongwith
constable
Mahaveer
Singh.

30. PW8 Head Constable Guru
Prasad is author of chick FIR, entries of
GD for registration of Case vide Report
No.9 time 19:20 dated 16.03.1993 and he
has proved these documents by his
evidence as Ext. Ka-18 and 19.

31. Learned A.G.A. appearing for
the appellant-State and learned counsel for
the
revisionist
Narendra
Pal
Singh
submitted as under:-

(1) This is undisputed fact
that deceased Alpana Singh died at
the
residence
of
her
in-laws
(appellant) in between 08:00 am to
05:00 pm as disclosed from the
evidence of doctor V.R. Vyas who
attended her at her residence in the
hospital premises at about 08:00
am, and Dr. Chandra Prakash who
also attended her learnt from the
employees of the hospital that she
died at 05:00 pm. This fact is also
undisputed that she died nine and
half months after the marriage.
(2) In the report dated
16.02.1993 lodged by N.P. Singh at
P.S. Sikandara Rau, he did not
mention the fact of demand of
dowry by accused persons and
consequent
ill
treatment
and
harassment meted out to her for not
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fulfilling the demand of dowry. In
his evidence PW1 N.P. Singh, has
stated that he fulfilled all the
demands of dowry except maruti
car.
He
had
also
given
the
assurance to accused persons to
fulfil their demand of maruti car,
when the crop is reaped from the
sale
of
agriculture
proceeds.
Although demand of maruti car
was made prior to settlement of
marriage and during marriage and
also at the time of the departure of
Alpana Singh after marriage, yet if
continued after marriage. Further
they
put
up
a
demand
for
establishing computer center for
accused Udai Pratap Singh in lieu
of maruti car. They also insisted
that the plot at Agra lying in the
name of Alpana Singh should be
transferred in the name of Udai
Pratap Singh.
(3) When the informant
visited the place of accused persons
and found dead body of his
daughter,
he
notices
unusual
conduct of accused persons who
touched his feet and requested him
to excuse them, yet he was not sure
at that time that her daughter was
killed by them. The accused
persons had even not informed the
complainant even telephonically
regarding ill health or subsequent
death of deceased.
(4) The informant could not
lodge a detailed report naming
accused persons promptly at police
station as he suffered mild attack
due to unnatural and sudden death
of his daughter and was admitted in
the hospital and his wife and son
had looked after him. Thus non
mentioning of the fact of demand
of dowry and cruelty in the report
dated 16.03.1993 filed with S.H.O
or in the request report becomes
immaterial and insignificant on the
facts of the case.
(5) The deceased died only
within nine and half months of her
marriage with the accused appellant
Udai Pratap Singh in unnatural
circumstances.
There
is
no
evidence that she was suffering
from Epilepsy prior to her date of
death and this story is cooked up by
accused
persons
to
create
a
defence. The letters produced on
record which are proved to be
written by the deceased reflect that
she was being ill treated and
harassed at her matrimonial home.
These letters correspond to the time
of demand of maruti car, opening
of computer center for accused
Udai Pratap Singh and transfer of
the plot in the name of husband of
deceased as appearing in FIR and
evidence
of
parents
of
the
deceased. The letters indicate that
she was suffering from mental
agony and was trying to conceal
something from her parents due to
fear of the appellants.
(6) There is absolutely
nothing in the application dated
04.03.1993 moved by the informant
to SSP which would suggest that
legal advice was taken before
moving
this
application.
The
contents of the letter as explained
above are quite consistent and untie
the truth and this version is
explained by the wife of the
complainant in her evidence.
(7) Omission of name of
Veer Pal Singh (PW3) who was a
middle man in the marriage, in FIR
8 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Ativeer Singh & Ors.
743
as well as in statements of the
parents
of
the
deceased
is
insignificant as nothing could be
elicited in cross examination of the
witness
which
could
suggest
otherwise with regard to reliability
of the witness.
(8) The prosecution has
proved its case against appellant by
cogent and trustworthy evidence of
the informant N.P. Singh, his wife
Kaushal
Kumari
and
witness
Veerpal Singh in support of the
charge against accused persons
with regard to demand of dowry
practicing matrimonial cruelty and
causing dowry death of deceased.
However, the learned trial court has
erroneously
disbelieved
the
testimony of the witnesses of facts
produced
by
prosecution
and
recorded a verdict of acquittal of
accused persons from all charges
taking hyper technical approach.

32. Per contra, learned counsel for
private
respondents/
accused
persons
submitted that the judgment of learned trial
court is sound, well reasoned, based on
logical conclusion and is coupled with
proper appreciation of evidence on record.

33. He further submitted that the
learned trial court has rightly given a
finding that taking into consideration the
evidence adduced from both sides the
prosecution case becomes doubtful. Even
the viscera examination report does not
conclusively prove that it was in fact
viscera of the deceased Alpana Singh
which was examined by chemical examiner
at Forensic Science Laboratory Agra. No
allegation, whatsoever has been raised
against appellants in first report dated
16.02.1993 lodged with P.S. concerned by
the informant. It trite law that the verdict of
acquittal should not be interfered with in
appeal by appellate court where two views
are possible, one in favour of of the
accused
and
other
suggesting
his
complicity in the offence. On account of
verdict of acquittal by trial court, the
presumption of innocence of the accused
gets fortified. Neither the appellant/State
nor the Revisionist /informant could make
out a good case for this Hon'ble Court to
interfere with the judgment and order
passed by learned trial court.

34. We have considered the
submissions made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties and reappreciated
the evidence on record in the light of
grounds taken in present appeal and
criminal revision preferred against verdict
of the acquittal passed by learned trial court
in respect of private respondents. The
accused-respondents are husband and inlaws of the deceased. Alpana Singh, the
daughter of first informant had died
unfortunate death around nine and half
months of her marriage with respondent
No.4 Udai Pratap Singh. This is admitted
fact that deceased and respondent No.4
Udai Pratap Singh were married according
to Hindu rites and rituals on 29.04.1992 at
the residence of informant Narendra Pal
Singh who was posted as Chief Food
Inspector in the office of C.M.O.