AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed under Section 378(i) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Session Judge, Shahdol in Session TrialÂ
No.164/2001, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After considering the entire prosecution evidence on record, it is established that the FIR has been lodged against the respondent after one month
from the incident. Similarly, the police belatedly recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. With regard to the delay in the
proceeding, we do not find any plausible explanation on record. All the witnesses, who deposed against the respondent are related witnesses.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, testimony of related witnesses cannot be accepted. Marriage of the deceased with respondent
was solemnized in the year 1996. Deceased Savita died in the year 2001. We do not find any evidence against the respondent, which shows that he
had misbehaved or beaten the deceased just soon before the incident.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baijnath and Ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2017) 1 SCC 101] has held as under :-
“Mere factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage not sufficient to convict accused under sections 304-B and
498-A â€" Only when prosecution proves beyond doubt that deceased was subjected to cruelty/harassment in connection with dowry demand soon
before her death presumption under Section 113-B can be invoked.
The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to bring
home the charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC against them. The predicament of the prosecution is compounded further by its failure to
prove, the precise cause of the death of the deceased. It is not clear as to whether the death was suicidal or homicidal or the origin and cause of the
external injuries. Though the obscurity of the causative factors is due to the putrefaction of the body, the benefit of the deficiency in proof, logically
would be available to the persons charged. The appellants are entitled to benefit of doubtâ€
This Court finds that the findings of the learned trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. No perversity or illegality has
been found in the opinion of learned trial court. In the case of Gemini Bala Koteshwara Rao and Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2010 SC
589] wherein it has been held that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusion drawn by the trial Court, but only in case
when the judgments of the trial Court is stated to be perverse. The Apex Court explained the word “perverse†to mean against weight of
evidence. Even though two views are possible as an appellate court this Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal mere because the other
view waspossible.
In the case of K.Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surendran [ (2008) 1 SCC 258] and T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2006) 1 SCC 401] wherein
it has been held that when the judgment of trial Court was neither perverse nor suffered from legal infirmity or non-consideration or misappropriation
of evidence on record. As an appellate court this Court cannot not reverse the judgment of acquittal mere because the other view was possible.
The prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the material and evidence available on record, no case is made out to
allow this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance alongwith the record immediately.