Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 823 of 2002 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Alok Sharma Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Amit Mishra,S.K. Agarwal Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
Case called out in the revised list. None is present on behalf of the revisionist.
Learned AGA is present.
Present revision has been filed against the judgment recorded by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2000
on 12.4.2002 whereby acquitting the respondents no. 2 to 4 for the offence
under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
In short, the contention of the revisionist in the revision is that Smt. Aradhana
had met an unnatural death within two years of her marriage and on 30th
October,1999 police informed the complainant about the death of the
deceased because the smell of kerosene was found around the place of
incident and the dead body was found lying in the kitchen in open and
because no one can commit suicide in open as the deceased was having a six
month’s child and was also pregnant of six weeks. In such circumstances, no
lady will commit suicide because in her letter to the complainant she had
described about the demand of dowry and also behaviour of the cruelty by her
in-laws and husband and it is prayed that the judgment of acquittal recorded
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to respondents no. 2 to 4
be set aside and they be convicted.
No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State or the opposite
parties. I have gone through the judgment delivered by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur.
The first point to be considered is that most of the grounds raised in the
revision are based on the expectation of natural human conduct but it cannot
be said with certainty as to under what circumstances a particular person will
act or react. In absence of any substantive evidence on mere apprehension of
one’s conduct no conclusion can be drawn by the criminal court.
Learned lower court has held in its judgment at page 9 that on consideration
of the circumstances this fact becomes cristal clear that at the time the
deceased caught fire, the accused Neelesh and his father were sitting in the
house of deceased Aradhana. It cannot be held that they had beaten her and
burnt her. Learned lower court has also observed that there are no signs of
injuries of beating on the person of the deceased. It is held by the learned
lower court that according to the FIR the deceased had told her brother to
bring Rs.50000/- within two days otherwise he will not find her sister alive. In
such circumstances, it was quite natural that they must have waited for two
days and must not have burnt the deceased immediately. Learned Court after
appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion that the contention
regarding torture, physical or mental with regard to any demand of dowry
immediately before the death could not be proved beyond reasonable and
probable doubt and thus he has acquitted the accused persons under Sections
498-A and 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibtion Act on the ground of benefit
of doubt.
It is also worth noting that even the State has not filed any appeal against the
aforesaid order of acquittal. Nothing adverse or perverse appears to be
reflecting in appreciation of evidence nor error or irregularity appears in
following the adequate procedure of law.
In the circumstances, on facts as well as law the revision does not appear to
have any force it itself and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed accordingly. Record of the lower court be sent back
to the learned lower court.
Order Date :- 6.8.2010
P.P.