Allahabad High Court Slams UP Govt for ‘Vexatious’ Dowry Death Appeal, Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation to Man with ‘Honourable Acquittal’
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena has dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of an accused in a case concerning charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court directed the State to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the accused, holding that the appeal lacked merit and failed to overcome the double presumption of innocence accorded to the accused in criminal jurisprudence. The Bench recorded that the appeal was filed without due application of mind, noting that the trial court had acquitted the accused on credible consideration of evidence, including a suicide note absolving all parties of responsibility.
The prosecution originated from an FIR lodged at Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, registered as Case Crime No. 210 of 2022. The informant, Santosh Bihari Kumar, alleged that his sister, married to the accused on 12 July 2021, was subjected to cruelty for dowry and ultimately committed suicide on 7 March 2022 while two months pregnant. He alleged that the accused disowned the child, refused to bear educational and living expenses, and issued threats to kill her.
The inquest was conducted the same day at the matrimonial home by Nayab Tehsildar Sulabh Gupta, with several witnesses present. A suicide note was recovered and sealed. It was written in Hindi with some English words, dated 07.03.2022, stating that the deceased, a student of M.Ed 3rd semester at Kumaun University, was committing suicide due to study stress and explicitly absolving both her in-laws and parents of responsibility. She requested that neither side be harassed and noted personal belongings to be given to her brother.
Post-mortem conducted on 8 March 2022 revealed a ligature mark consistent with hanging, no signs of pregnancy, and the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.
The suicide note's handwriting was compared with the deceased's writing in her register and found to match. The prosecution filed a charge sheet, dropping Section 316 IPC as no pregnancy was found. Witnesses included the informant (P.W.-1), the mother of the deceased (P.W.-2), and the cousin (P.W.-3). The defence produced the landlord (D.W.-1) as a witness.
The trial court acquitted the accused, noting the absence of specific evidence of dowry demand, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the suicide note’s clear contents. It observed that the expenses for the deceased’s studies were borne by the accused and that P.W.-1 was present with the deceased the day before her death. The court held that the essential elements for a conviction under dowry death provisions were not proved, except that the death was within seven years of marriage and unnatural.
State's appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate evidence correctly and that contradictions in witness statements were wrongly considered material. The defence maintained that the trial court’s findings were correct, relying on the suicide note as exonerating evidence.
The Bench recorded, "The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment acquitting an accused on the principle that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by such a judgment." Citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, the court stated, "If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred."
The court observed that the suicide note was an important piece of evidence, stating, "The suicide note reiterated, hereinabove, reveals that the deceased...committing suicide due to study stress... her husband... her in-laws are not responsible for her death by suicide." It held that this document, proved by the prosecution, could not be ignored.
The court noted that the prosecution's own evidence undermined its case, stating, "The prosecution, since the stage of investigation has gathered the material, which evince that the accused is not guilty." It further remarked on the State's responsibility, "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... Mere writing of these phrases does not suffice."
The Bench criticised the appeal as lacking proper consideration, observing, "The State before issuing direction to public prosecutor to present this appeal in case of acquittal has not applied its judicial mind."
The court concluded, "Thus, the accused... who got an 'honourable acquittal'... shall be paid compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs within 30 days from the date of this order, which is just and proper compensation for vexatious criminal prosecution." It directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court for compliance and to the Secretary/District Legal Services Authority, Bulandshahr for necessary action.
The appeal was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Ashutosh Kumar Sand, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Pranvesh, Saurabh Kesarwani, learned counsel
Case Title: State of U.P. v. Dhirendra Kumar S/O Nand Kishor Jaiswal
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:116751-DB
Case Number: Government Appeal No. 115 of 2025
Bench: Justice Siddharth, Justice Avnish Saxena
