Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108109 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 386 of 2025 Appellant :- Umakant Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Complainant-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 413 B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment and order dated 29.5.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Azamgarh in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2019, titled State Vs. Rupesh Kumar Dubey and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 422 of 2017, under Section 306 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Aihraula, District Azamgarh, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the victim was married to accused Rupesh Kumar Dubey (respondent no.2) in the year 2006 and soon thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty for dowry demand and pained with the behaviour of her husband and his other relatives, she was compelled to end her life. According to learned counsel, the victim left behind a suicide note and it would clearly establish that the accused persons abetted the victim to end her life, but the material evidence brought on record by prosecution has been ignored by the trial court while acquitting the accused. Learned counsel has further argued that at one stage, the parties had entered into a settlement, whereby the accused Rupesh Kumar Dubey had given an assurance that the victim would not be harassed, but the conduct of the accused has been completely ignored by the trial court. Besides, according to learned counsel, the victim had died in the house of the accused, therefore, it is for the accused to explain the circumstances behind the alleged occurrence and in the absence of any explanation, the trial court ought to have convicted the accused persons. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel that the impugned judgment dated 29.5.2025 is not sustainable, and he prays that the impugned judgment dated 29.5.2025 be set aside and the accused be convicted. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering his submissions, this Court finds that according to complainant- Uma Kant Tiwari (P.W.-1), an information was received on 21.11.2017 that his niece-victim has been strangulated by her husband and his parents namely, Susheel Kumar Dubey and Belmata Devi, who were subjecting her to cruelty soon after the marriage, but during the lifetime of the victim, no complaint in this regard was ever made by her. The alleged incident took place eleven years after the marriage of the victim, who committed suicide and left behind a nine years old daughter. The alleged suicide written by the deceased does not convincingly indicate any abettment on the part of the accused persons, as the opening line shows that she is seeking pardon for something wrong done by her. That apart, she expressed lack of attention and complained that her husband most of the times humiliated her, but the wordings of this note does not at all suggest that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, therefore, this piece of evidence is not sufficient to hold that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. The argument by learned counsel for appellant that as the victim died in the house of the accused, it is for them to explain the circumstances of the death is also without any force, as the victim died by suicide leaving behind a suicide note, therefore, in the absence of any explanation by the accused cannot be taken against them. A perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.5.2025 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the material on record, particularly the prosecution evidence and rightly observed that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. The reasoning given in the impugned judgment of acquittal while extending benefit of doubt to the accused is based on sound judicial principles, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. No other argument has been raised. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 P.S.Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad