State of U.P. vs Smt. Karma Devi

This application for leave to appeal arises out of judgment dated 22.6.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial Nos. 431 of 2005 and Sessions Trial Nos. 190 of 2006, recording the acquittal of respondents Smt. Karma Devi and Smt. Shashi Prabha Singh while convicting accused Anand Kumar Singh u/s 498A and 304B I.P.C.

It appears from the prosecution story as narrated in the trial court''s judgment that deceased Kiran Singh was married to accused Anand Kumar Singh in the year 2002 as per Hindu rites. The father of the deceased gave in dowry articles which included one Splendor Motor-cycle and Rs. 50,000/- cash. Thereafter Anad Kumar Singh demanded one gold chain and Smt. Karma Devi grand mother-in-law demanded a Fridge towards dowry. Hence, as per allegation the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment leading to unnatural death on 18.1.2005 at 6 O''clock. It also appears from prosecution case that deceased had visited her parental house in December, 2004 where she had narrated the harassment and cruelty being caused to her on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

In order to substantiate the case which started after putting up of challan u/s 498A and 304B I.P.C., the prosecution primarily placed reliance on the testimony of father Yogendra Pratap Singh P.W. 1 and brother Ashish Pratap Singh P.W.2 of the deceased.

During careful scrutiny of the testimony, the trial court noticed that there was no mention in the F.I.R. that any of the accused subjected deceased Kiran Singh to cruelty or ever maltreated her. This appears from the testimony of her father Yogendra Pratap Singh - P.W.1. However, there were sufficient material on record according to trial court to hold only one accused, namely, husband of the deceased Anand Kumar Singh guilty of charge. Besides, the trial court also noticed that Karma Devi, grand mother-in-law was an old lady and the demand of dowry attributed to her i.e. a fridge is not acceptable. The trial court took this view after taking into consideration the human conduct of an old lady.

Learned Counsel for State submitted that on the same set of evidence the husband has been convicted and the trial court has recorded the acquittal in respect of the ladies, mother-in-law and grand mother-in-law.

We are not convinced with the submission of the learned Counsel for the State inasmuch as the F.I.R. and the statement of PW-1 are silent about the specific role of demand of dowry as noticed in the trial court''s judgment. Besides, looking to the age of grand mother-in-law, as determined to be 74 years during the course of trial it was not probable that she could have demanded a fridge in dowry because she was living in village. Besides, this is a leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, and in a catena of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, it has been held that if on appreciation of evidence, two views are possible, the view taken in favour of the accused by trial court in the facts and circumstance of the case should be taken as probable and reasonable view.

Hence, this application for leave to appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. Thus, it is rejected.

However, in the end we observe that the observation made here-in-above shall have no reflection on the merits of appeal filed on behalf of convicted accused Anand Kumar Singh.