HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR i CRAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gugta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha‘U. Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 1996 The State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) Vs. Brajla & others l JUDGMENT For consqeration A Sdl— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajeev Gupta c i hief Justce Post for judgment:l//O4/201 0 Sdl- < SUNIL KUMAR SINH Judge : A ’2 o IU4/2010 O HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ! i CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 1996 APPELLANT The State of MP. (Now Chhattisgarh) Through the Station House Officer, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Brajlal S/o Babulaf Lodhi, Aged 25 V- years, R/o Saloni, Police Station Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgoan (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh) . 2. Nayana Bai W/o Babulalvkodhi, Aged 47 .years, R/o Saloni Police Station Dogargarh, District— Rajnandgaon 3. Teerath Bai, W/o Pakkiram Lodhi, Aged 27 years, R/o Saloni Police Station Dongargarh, District— Rajnandgaon (MP) (Now Chhattisgarh) (Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (1) of The Code of Criminat Procedure) l 1 Appearance: Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State. Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT (2l .04.2010) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. =(1) Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 29.6.96 passed in Sessions Tri‘ai No. 12/96 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, the State has filed this appeal. J 2 Criminal Appeal N0. 1838 of 1996 The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Respondent No.1—Brajlal is husban of deceased-Jantri Bai. Respondent No.2-Nayana Bai is mother—in-Iaw and respondent No.3-Teerath Bai is sister-in-Iaw (Jethani) of the deceased. Jantri Bai was married‘to respondent No.1, 11/2 years prior to the date of incident i.e. 21.9.95. The dead body of the deceased was found in stop—dam in village Saioni. The prosecution came with the case that the deceased committed suicide as she was harassed by the respondents on account of demand of dowry. The charge—sheet was fiied u/ss 304-B, 306 & 498—A IPC. However, the charges were framed u/ss 304-B & 306 IPC. The case of the prosecution was based on the eVIdence of Chokhram (PW—1 — father of the deceased) who deposed that the deceased used to tell him that she was being treated With cruelty b The Sessions Court disbelieved the testimony of Chokhram (PW—1) and held that the prosecution could not establish that the deceased was being harassed by the respondents on account of demand of dowry or the respondents had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, all the respondents were acquitted. y the respondents on account of demand of dowry. (3) appearing on behalf of the appellant/State, argued that the Sessions Court erred in law in holding that the prosecution could not establish that the deceased was being harassed by the respondents on account of demand of dowry or there was no evidence of abetment to commit suicide, therefore, the judgment of acquittal vitiates. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General (4) behalf of the respondents, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 7.5 ' On the other hand, Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel appearing on \‘Ak l l i (2) ; u . d \ 3 Q 9 Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 1996 (5); We have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties at length and haV/ie also perused the records of the sessions case. t (6)‘ Chokhram (PW-1) deposed that Jantri Bai was his eidest daughter. She; was married to Brajlai. Her marriage took place 2 years prior to the l date of his evidence which was recorded on 4.4.96. When his daughter came from in—laws place, she told that her husband, mother—in—Iaw and l jethani used to harass her on account of dowry. She told him that the respondents used to quarrel with her saying that she has not brought fan. Even after 6 months of the marriage, the respondents used to say that she has brought less dowry and fan etc. have not beéh given. He told her daughter to reside with the in-Iaws. After sometime her daughter again came to his house making complaints that the respondents used to quarrel with her. On this, he called many villagers, before whom her daughter stated that the respondents were demanding Rs.2,000/- from her. On 14.9.95, she took her daughter to her in—laws place. Later on, on 21.9.95 he was informed that her daughter has died by drowning in stop- dam. (7) In the cross—examination, he admitted vide agara—12 that it is true that Babulal, Brajlal, Nayana Bai and Teerath Bai never asked him to give dowry. He further admitted that after the marriage of her daughter with respondent-Brajlal, he had visited her in-laws place for 3 times. He also admitted that even at the time of marriage, the respondents had not demanded dowry and he had given gold and silver ornaments to her daughter on his own will. He further admitted in Para-16 of the cross- examination that when his daughter had visited his place on the occasion l 1.7x ' m 4 /"/‘ 2% Criminal Appeal N0. 1838 of 1996 of Bhojli festivaL at that time also, she did not make complaints against thej persons of her in-Iaws place. (8)} 161 statement of this witness was recorded on 1:10.95. The i Sessions Judge observed that till the said date there was no whisper about the demand of dowry by the respondents or treating the deceased with cruelty by‘ them on account of demand of dowry. it was further observed that Bhikham who was‘the uncle (Mausa of the deceased) was l alsouresiding in village Saloni but the deceased never made any complaint to him regarding treating her with cruelty by the respondents. it was als‘o observe‘d that there was no evidence of demand of dowry soon before the death. On these reasons, the Sessions Judge did not believe the testimony of Chokhram (PW-1) and held that the prosecution could not establish that either the deceased was being treated‘with cruelty or there was a demand of dowry. (9) According to the post—mortem report (Ex.-P/3), the cause of death was asphyxia on account of drowning and the Doctor could not ascertain the nature of death. There was no evidence of abetment to commit & suicide. lt is on all these grounds, the Sessions,§ourt held that the prosecution could not establish that the death of the deceased was either a “dowry death” or the respondents ”abetted” the deceased to commit v suicide. ‘=(10) ln Budh Singh and others —Vs.- State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731, the Apex Court held vide para 9, that in a matter of appeal against acquittal, the High Court does not ordinarily set aside a judgment of 5 Criminal Appeal N0. 1838 of 1996 acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the View of the Ap¢ellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittai, it is free to consider the entire evidence on record la so ‘as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or othenNise unsustainable. It ‘is also entitled to consider as to whe‘ther in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of i V ' bur‘den of proof may also be a subject matter of the scrutiny of the Appellate Court. . (11) In V.N. Ratheesh —Vs.- State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 2667, the Apex Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Apex Court said that the golden thread which runs through the‘web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two. views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, @ne pointing to the as guilt of the accused and other to his innocence: the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Apex Court further said that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that misCarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may r rarise from acquittal of thefg'T‘iilt is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused' has“ been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to r 6 /"\ (z Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 1996 whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. The Apex Court referred to the decision rendered in the matter of Bhagwan Sinyh and others —Vs.- State of Madhya Pradesh (2002 (2) Supreme 567). It was further held that the principle to be fotlowed by Appellate Couirt considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to inteifere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant andi convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. (12) Ir: RameshZBabuIaI Doshi —-Vs- State of Guiarat_(1996) 9 SCC 225, the Apex Court said that “While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. if the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittat cannot at ail be sustained in view of any of the above inflrmities it can then-and then aonly-reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions”. at! (13) We have gone through the entire evidence on record with a view to find out as to whether the views of the Sessions Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainabIerwAfter going through the entire evidence available on‘record, we do not find any compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. it is not a case in which the judgment may be said to be unreasonable or a case in which \ 7 relejvant and convincing materials have been eliminated in the process of appreciation. i i i la Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 1996 (14); For the foregoing reasons, we do’not find any subétance in the appeal. The appeal filed by the State, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ./, i MW Sdl- Sdl— Sunil Kumar Sinha i - chief JuStice‘ Judge