Judgment:
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 752 of 2012 ------ Anand Dutta .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Guru Pado Singh 3.Rathu Singh 4.Kartik Singh 5.Shanti Singh 6.Lila Bala Devi 7.Nimai Sen 8.Unnati Bala Devi .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Asmita Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Kr. Amit, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Pathak, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. For O.P. Nos.2 to 8: Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate ------ C.A.V. ON:
21. 07.2017 PRONOUNCED ON:- 31.08.2017 This revision is directed against the judgment dated 26th June, 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2011 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Bokaro.
2. The short fact relating to this case is that initially on the basis of written report of Chas (M) P.S. Case No.72 of 2007 registered under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after taking cognizance charges were explained. After conclusion of the trial, the Court of S.D.J.M., Bokaro passed the order of conviction against the accused/opposite parties no.2 to 8 and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment. They were also sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment with direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Opposite Parties No.2 to 8 aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence challenged in the appeal before the court of Sessions Judge, Bokaro 2 which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2011. After considering the materials available on record, the appellate court held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable and probable doubts. Resultantly, the appellants/accused persons were given benefit of doubt while allowing the appeal, the judgment of conviction and sentences were set aside.
4. Judgment passed in appeal by the then Sessions Judge, Bokaro is challenged in revision herein, on the ground that the court below has not considered the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and without application of mind mechanically set aside the judgment of conviction which was passed after taking account of the prosecution evidences.
5. Ms. Asmita Srivastava, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the trial court have found that due to non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry the torture was meted out on the wife Anita Devi. She further submitted that when the court found that cruelty committed upon her then the acquittal by the appellate court is bad in the eye of law. She also submitted that administering of medicine by the husband led to the miscarriage of pregnency. The prosecution has able to establish that there was a demand of cash, colour television and other articles. She has relied upon the case of Satpal vs. State of Haryana reported in (1998) 5 SCC687 6. Mr. Vipul Poddar appearing on behalf of the O.P. Nos.2 to 8 opposed and submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that the miscarriage was caused due to administration of medicine but no medical evidence was brought on record in support thereof. He also submitted that the wife Anita Devi was getting continuous treatment in a mental hospital and the medical prescriptions were also marked exhibits in this case. The wife was suffering from severe depression with psychiatric symptom shows her behaviour was not normal. He also submitted that only interested witness have been examined to prove the case. The appellate court after consideration of the materials brought on record by the prosecution as well as the defence came to the finding that the prosecution could not be able to prove its case and thereby extended the benefit of doubt. He relied on the judgments of Satyajit Banerjee and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2005) 1 SCC115and submitted that this Court has very limited revisional jurisdiction to convert the acquittal into a conviction as the settled legal position. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar(Now Jharkhand) and Anr. reported in (2002) 6 SCC650and submitted that the High Court would 3 convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. Therefore the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant.
7. In the case of Bhagwan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2002) 4 SCC85the Court held :- “The settled position of law regarding the powers of the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal is that the Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based and generally, it will not interfere with the order of acquittal because by passing an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is re-inforced. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.” Basing upon the above ratio he further submitted that in a case of Suchand Pal Vs. Phani Pal and Anr. reported in (2003) 11 SCC527 it has also been held that : - “Generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal.” It is an established position in law that prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the version it alleges. It must stand on its own legs and cannot take advantage of the weakness in defence case.
8. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, it would appear that the judgment of conviction was held under Section 498A/34 IPC as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The revisional Court held that the testimony of the witnesses are to be scrutinized in totality, against the backdrop of the overall facts and circumstances of the case. It has to be seen that whether the accounts of the witnesses are cogent, reliable and trustworthy. The revisional Court find that the prosecution witness could not brought any medical evidence with regard to sustaining of burn injury as well as administration of intoxicating medicine. The Court also relied the evidence of treating doctor which negative the allegations. It finds that nowhere specific allegations were made against the appellants and it were meant to humiliate and harass to the relatives of husband. In this backdrop, the revisional Court extended the benefit of doubt upon the 4 accused persons.
9. Also considering the decisions cited above and the submissions of the parties as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that it would not be justifiable in interfering with the finding of acquittal as it would amount to ordering for re-trial. The presumption of innocence appears to be in favour of petitioners.
10. Therefore, finding no occasion to interfere in the impugned order, instant revision is dismissed. (B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 31st August, 2017 R.P./A.F.R.