In Many Cases, Trial Court Convict Accused Who Deserves Clear Acquittal 'Fearing' Action By High Court: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court remarked that in many cases where the accused deserves clear acquittal, the Trial Court passes the judgment of conviction and sentence only to avoid issuance of notice and action by the High Court.
The Court was deciding a batch of criminal appeals preferred against the judgment of the Sessions Judge by which the accused persons were acquitted for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act), however, convicted under Section 506(I) of IPC.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi said, “Learned Single Judge of this High Court not only issued notice to the Sessions Judge but directed the matter to be placed before Hon’ble The Chief Justice for kind perusal without waiting for reply of District and Sessions Judge and deciding whether reply of the District and Sessions Judge was satisfactory or not. Such conduct of the High Court is responsible for the fear on the part of the Judicial Officers in the trial court and in many cases where the accused deserves clear acquittal, judgment of conviction and order of sentence is passed only because Presiding Officers want to avoid issuance of notice and action by High Court ordered without properly considering their judgments and orders.”
Advocate Rajrshi Gupta appeared for the appellants/accused while AGA Divya Ojha and Advocate (Special Counsel) Sudhir Mehrotra appeared for the respondent/State.
Facts of the Case -
As per the prosecution case, the informant got married his daughter to the appellant-accused and Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and other goods were given in dowry to the appellants. It was alleged that the accused persons used to demand one Maruti car more in dowry and used to torture the informant’s daughter. Whenever his daughter used to come to her parental home, she used to complain that the appellants were allegedly demanding a car and in case the same was not given, she would be killed. The informant, his son and two relatives went to Rajkot where they discovered that on account of beating, the disk of the waist of his daughter got displaced and operation became necessary.
It was further alleged that the appellants stated that only after their demand of car is fulfilled, they will get the operation of their daughter conducted. One night, the elder brother-in-law of the informant’s daughter informed on phone that she fell from the roof of his house and died. When he and others went there, they did not find any signs of falling from the roof on her body. It was also alleged that the appellants started throwing bricks and stones and threatened them to leave their place. Hence, an FIR was registered against the appellants in this regard. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 506(I) of IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000. Being aggrieved, they were before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “Reading of definition of “criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation or property of person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person has interest and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or forbit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.”
The Court further took note of the following points –
(i) For proving the offence under Section 506 IPC prosecution is required to prove that the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threatening consisted of some injury to his person, reputation of property.
(iii) That he did so with intent to compel either that person to do or not to do an act to which he was legally entitled.
“In this case, no injury was caused to any person. There is no evidence that the appellants threatened the prosecution side from not insisting upon the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased which was a legal necessity. There is clear allegation that bricks and stones were thrown on P.W.-1 and his relatives by the appellant's side. None of them suffered any injury nor the Investigating Officer, during investigation, found any such evidence. The Investigating Officers, P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8, have not found the alleged incident proved”, it also noted.
The Court said that the finding of the Trial Court regarding conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 506 Part-I IPC is perverse and not based on any credible evidence.
Before parting with the judgment, the Court emphasised, “… we must do justice also to the Presiding Officer who passed the judgment and order under appeal and was issued show cause notice by a learned Single Judge as to why he has acquitted the appellants u/S 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section ¾ of D.P. Act despite presumption against them u/S 113-B of Evidence Act.”
The Court remarked that the conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 506 Part 1 IPC was unwarranted and may have been ordered only for protection of Trial Court from unwanted notice like the one which was issued by the Single Judge to the District and Sessions Judge.
“The reply submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh is accepted with regret that learned Single Judge should not have issued notice to the Presiding Officer of trial court merely on the basis of submission of counsel for informant without considering the full facts and the law involved in the case. Learned Single Judge of this court acted is haste when he issued notice to the District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The District and Sessions Judge has stated in his reply that the notice has been issued to him only to harm his reputation and service career”, it added.
The Court, therefore, directed to search the then District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh who certainly retired by now and send a copy of the judgment to him so that he may know that he did not commit any error in deciding the case, except the minor error of conviction of appellants under Sections 506, Part 1 IPC.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of conviction.
Cause Title- Virendra Singh and Others v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:149166-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Dileep Kumar, Advocates Rajrshi Gupta A.K.S. Solanki, Achyuta Nand Pandey, Bablu Singh, Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, Samit Gopal, Sudhir Mehrotra, and Vinod Singh.
Respondents: AGA Divya Ojha, Advocate (Special Counsel) Sudhir Mehrotra, Advocates A.K. Singh, Aradhana Chauhan, G.P. Singh, and G.S. Hajela.
