Allahabad High Court Slams UP Govt For 'Vexatious' Dowry Death Appeal, Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation To Honourably Acquitted Man
The Allahabad High Court recently ordered compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to a man, who after being honourably acquitted by the Court in a dowry death case was made to face “vexatious criminal prosecution” in State's appeal.The bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena observed,“we are of staunch view that the State before issuing direction to public prosecutor to present this...
The Allahabad High Court recently ordered compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to a man, who after being honourably acquitted by the Court in a dowry death case was made to face “vexatious criminal prosecution” in State's appeal.
The bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena observed,
“we are of staunch view that the State before issuing direction to public prosecutor to present this appeal in case of acquittal has not applied it's judicial mind. Unconsiderate to the fact that life and liberty of the accused, who is enjoying double presumption of his innocence in a criminal case, has been twice at jeopardy and hence, would be suitably compensated.”
The wife of respondent had hanged herself pursuant to alleged demands of dowry and rejection on part of the husband in accepting the alleged child as his own. A suicide note was found alongside her body and upon post-mortem it was found that death was due to hanging from the ceiling fan.
Respondent-accused was tried under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trail Court honourably acquitted him of all charges. State Government filed an appeal against the order of the Trial Court on grounds that evidence was not properly considered and the acquittal was based on conjectures and surmises. It was pleaded that witness testimonies regarding unnatural death within 7 years of marriage preceded by dowry demands was ignored by the Trial Court.
The High Court held that where a judgment acquitting accused is based on the presumption of innocence in his favour, the appellate courts are reluctant to interfere. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, the Apex Court held that perversity in order of Trial Court must be seen before re-appreciating the evidence in case of challenge to acquittal. In Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P, the Supreme Court held that perversity must be determined to interfere with order of acquittal as appeal against acquittal stands at a different pedestal from appeal against conviction.
In Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim and Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P. , the Supreme Court has held that where two views are possible, one conviction and other acquittal, the latter must be taken especially when circumstantial evidence is being considered to prove the guilt of the accused.
Observing that the suicide note clearly provided that the suicide was due to study stress and not due to dowry demands, the Court dismissed the Government appeal against the honourable acquittal of the respondent.
However the Court observed that the appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C./419 BNSS was being filed without considering and appreciating the evidence on record and the findings of the Trial Court.
“The legislature while legislating the provision of Section 378 Cr.P.C. (419 B.N.S.S.) makes it an exception and not as a rule as provided against conviction. Therefore, purposefully incorporated a word 'direct' in sub-section (1)(a), (1)(b) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. to exercise this power to 'direct', the public prosecutor to file an appeal against acquittal, must be used sparingly and with circumspection. This shows that the direction cannot be exercised without application of mind and in cursorily fashion.”
Further, the Court observed that the Investigating Officer relied both on the suicide note and shaky, untrustworthy testimonies of the witnesses, and did not consider the factum of the wife's first marriage. Appreciating the Trial Court's consideration of evidence and application of mind, the Court observed that “To the utter dismay, the State has challenged the judgment of acquittal.”
Relying on Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, the Court held that the Government is duty bound to follow the scope of appeal against acquittal as formulated by the Courts overtime and the order of acquittal cannot be challenged in a routine manner.
“The State Government before giving direction to public prosecutor to present an appeal is under a legal obligation to state in clear words its direction that there is substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusion and apparent mistake, which warrants appeal. Mere writing of these phrases does not suffice, it should be made clear and explicit in an application for leave to appeal provided under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C./ Section 419(3) B.N.S.S.”
Holding that the respondent's life and liberty were put at risk twice without due consideration, the Court directed a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to be paid to him.
Case Title: State of U.P. v. Dhirendra Kumar S/O Nand Kishor Jaiswal [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 115 of 2025]
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand
Counsel for Respondent :- Pranvesh, Saurabh Kesarwani