Shailendra Kumar Yadav vs Nitesh Yadav And Others

Applicant/complainant has preferred this petition under Section 378(4) of CrPC for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15.7.2015

passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.299/2009, whereby the respondents/accused have been

acquitted from the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1Neetesh Yadav got married with deceased Priyanka on 23.1.2007. Thereafter, the deceased was

subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, as a result she committed suicide at her parental house by hanging herself from ceiling fan

between 5 to 6 am on 26.9.2009. The matter was reported to the police. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. The statements of the

witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents for the offence under Section 304-

B of the IPC.

Learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record by the impugned judgment acquitted the respondents/accused from the

aforesaid charge. Aggrieved by which, the applicant/complainant has filed this petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of

acquittal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant stated that the prosecution witnesses, who have been examined by the trial Court, have made direct

and specific allegation against the respondents regarding cruelty, which they have committed with the deceased for fulfillment of their demand of

dowry. It is further submitted that deceased Priyanka was working as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-3 in village Eklod, Tahsil Sironj, District Vidisha

and she was also harassed by the respondents by pressurizing her to give the whole salary to the inlaws which she got from her job, these acts of the

accused persons forced the deceased to commit suicide. However, the trial Court ignored the aforesaid facts and circumstances which were

established by the prosecution. The trial Court has erred in not considering the basic ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC and acquitting the

respondents by taking a hyper-technical approach, which is complete miscarriage of justice and against the principles of law. Hence, he prays for

grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

On perusal of the statement of Vimlabai (PW-1), Virendra Kumar Yadav (PW-2), Shailendra Kumar Yadav (PW-3), Deeptibala Yadav (PW-4)

and Udai Chandra Yadav (PW-5), it is borne out that the deceased Priyanka was married to respondent No.1 in Gayitri Temple at Hoshangabad on

23.1.2007. These witnesses deposed that at the time of marriage of Priyanka they had given rupees two lakhs cash and different domestic articles

worth rupees one lakh in dowry to the respondents but they were not satisfied with the aforesaid dowry and they demanded television etc. and

tortured the deceased for fulfillment of their demand. They also harassed the deceased to force her to give the whole salary to them which she earned

from her job, due to which she committed suicide.

Vimlabai (PW-1) and Virendra Kumar Yadav (PW-2), mother and father of the deceased accepted in their cross-examination that the deceased

was in service as contractual teacher grade-3 at village Eklod Tahsil Sironj District Vidisha. During the argument, learned counsel for the applicant

admitted that the place of posting of the deceased was 300 Kms. away from her matrimonial house situated at village Banapur (Seoni-Malwa),

District Hoshangabad and the deceased used to visit her matrimonial house only during vacation. In these circumstances, it does not seem believable

that the respondents continuously harassed the deceased to fulfill their illegal demand of dowry.

It also reveals from the statements of the witnesses that deceased came to her parental house 15 days prior to her death and she has committed

suicide in her parental house. The police has not collected any phone call details of the deceased and respondents to establish that the respondents had

made any communication with the deceased soon before her death, therefore, there arises no question that soon before her death the deceased was

subjected to cruelty by the respondents with respect to demand of dowry. Hence, the ingredient for constitution of offence under Section 304-B of the

IPC is found missing and therefore, the presumption as to abetment of suicide by the deceased cannot be drawn.

From the statements of the witnesses it is not clear that on which date and time the respondents demanded dowry and ill-treated the deceased. The

witnesses have made only general and omnibus allegation against the respondents with respect to demand of dowry and illtreatment. There are

inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the demand of dowry. Vimlabai (PW-1) stated that the respondents

demanded money to purchase inverter, television and vehicle, whereas Virendra Kumar Yadav (PW-2) alleged that the respondents demanded

television and Rs.50000/- from the deceased to purchase four-wheeler. Shailendra Kumar Yadav (PW-3) stated that the respondents demanded

pulsar motorcycle while Deeptibala Yadav (PW-4) and Udai Chandra Yadav (PW5), sister and brother-in-law of the deceased, deposed that

respondents demanded Rs.50000/-. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses.

Looking to the aforesaid circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court does not appear

to be perverse or illegal which can be interfered by this Court.

It is settled principle of law that if the trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence comes to the conclusion about the finding of acquittal then

normally if the finding is not perverse, this should not be interfered with by the Appellate Court. For this, reliance can be placed on the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka [2007 AIR SCW 1850], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the legal

principles for to entertain the appeal against acquittal and held as under:-

From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an

appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;

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

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence

before it may reach its own conclusion, both on question 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 emphasize 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 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 conclusionsare possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal

recorded by the trial Court"".

In view of re-appreciation of the entire evidence and on the basis of legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Chandrappa (supra), we are of the considered view that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court does not appear to be perverse.

Resultantly, no grounds are available for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. Hence, the petition filed on behalf of the

applicant/complainant is dismissed accordingly.