AMAR SARAN & RAMESH SINHA, J. - (1.) - Heard learned AGA and perused the Trial Court judgment and record.
(2.) THIS application for leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.10.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Jaunpur acquitting the accused-respondents under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case, the FIR was registered on the basis of an application filed by the Soolan, father of the deceased on 3.3.2008 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In this case, some allegations of demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/-, Hero Honda Motorcycle, Gold Ring etc. have been levelled against accused-respondents. It is alleged that the accused-respondents, namely, Ramvriksh, Jaybaran, and Firturam came to the house of the informant on 17.6.2007 for taking away Kiran (deceased) with them, they also demanded for dowry. On the next day i.e. on 18.6.2007, the informant got information that his daughter had been murdered. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was recovered in a sack, which was claimed to have been identified by the claimant to be of his daughter but as no case was registered, hence an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was given. The informant Soolan was not examined in Court as he had become mad. Only PW1-Vimla and PW-2 Ramvachan, mother and brother of the deceased, have been examined as witnesses of fact. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that even there was no material to indicate that the so called dead body which was recovered by the police, regarding which an inquest was conducted on 20.6.2007 was that of the deceased. The reasons for this finding was that the inquest was conducted on an unknown body and post-mortem was done on an unknown dead body. The deceased was cremated by the police and not by the informant and other family members. The limbs of the dead body were missing hence the claim of the witnesses that there was a tatoo on her arm facilitating identification appears to be incorrect. The witnesses Vimla and Ramvachan etc. were not shown as witnesses of the inquest. The accused-respondents have led evidence by producing DW1 Dr. Ram Shakal Singh, who gave evidence that the deceased was suffering from cholera as a result of which she had died. DW2 Malik Chaudhary who performed the last rites states that the informant and other relations of the deceased were present during the last rites. DW3-Chhotey Lal has deposed that marriage had taken place 10 years earlier, therefore, the Trial Court recorded a finding that there was no proof that the death of Kiran had taken place within seven years of the marriage. Also no marriage card had been produced for proving this fact. Even the allegation of dowry demand has been disbelieved by the Trial Court as the informant was not produced. There were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses in this regard. Learned AGA on the other hand argued that the dead body of the deceased was hurriedly disposed of after the murder. There was sufficient evidence against the accused respondents and the Trial Court has misread the evidence and acquitted the accused- respondents.
(3.) CONSIDERING the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the grounds for acquittal mentioned by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. It is well settled law that even where two views are possible, the view taken by the Trial Court should not normally be interfered with if the view taken is not highly improbable or unreasonable. Hence no interference is called for in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Application for Leave to Appeal is rejected and the Govt. Appeal is also dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.;