Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161584 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS DEFECTIVE No. - 130 of 2025 Applicant :- Jolly Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey,Sandeep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. In Ref:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application. Heard. For the reasons mentioned behind the delay of one day in filing the appeal, the same is condoned. The application is allowed. Office to allot regular number to this appeal. (Order on Appeal) Complainant-Appellant has filed this application seeking leave to appeal under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment and order dated 11.6.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate-II, Amroha in Complaint Case No. 369 of 2021 (Complaint Cases No.1337 of 2019), titled Jolly Vs. Yogesh and another, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent nos.2 and3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. As per the allegations by complainant-applicant, she was married to opposite party no.2 Yogesh on 7.10.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals and her father had given sufficient dowry, but her in-laws being greedy were not satisfied with the dowry. As per the allegations, after marriage the accused started demanding Scorpio car and her husband Yogesh, father-in-law Raghuveer, brother-in- law Rajendra, sister-in-law Manju and Jagdeesh (brother of father- in-law) used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry, who used to say that she has brought down their reputation in the society. The complainant's husband-Yogesh previously had refused to accept matrimonial alliance, despite an offer of Rs.30 lacs, and his marriage without the dowry is not to their expectations. The complainant revealed all the atrocities meted out to her to the close relatives including her parents, who tried to convince the accused, and not to harass the complainant, but they were adamant on their demand. On 25.11.2027 at around 8 A.M. the accused persons gave her beatings and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house, and she returned to her parental home. Though an application by complainant was given to the police for registration of F.I.R., but the same was not acted upon, therefore, the complainant filed the criminal complaint. After recording pre-summoning evidence, only husband Yogesh and his brother Rajendra were summoned for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, pre- charge evidence was recorded wherein the complainant appeared as P.W.-1 alongwith her parents as P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, respectively. Based on the said evidence, the charges were framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the explanation of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence evidence, accused Yogesh had set up a plea of alibi and the relevant document in this regard was produced before the trial court. Upon examining the evidence on record, the trial court acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution had led sufficient convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused, but the evidence on record has not been carefully examined by the trial court while acquitting the accused persons. Learned counsel submits that the stand of the complainant- appellant was duly supported by her parents and the witnesses had clearly stated about the harassment meted out to the complainant on account of dowry demand. He prays that the impugned judgment and order dated 11.6.2025 be set aside and the accused persons be convicted for the alleged offences. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and considering his submissions, this Court finds that the couple resided together only for a brief period of a month and fifteen days after their marriage on 7.10.2017, as according to the complainant, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house on 25.11.2017. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the evidence on record conclusively proved the charges against the accused is without any force, as the material witnesses have not adopted a consistent stand before the trial court, as even in respect of the marriage itself there are contradictory versions. The mother of the complainant initially stated that Yogesh along with Barat came to her house for marriage, but during cross-examination she revealed that the marriage ceremony was held at a temple in the presence of two witnesses. Similarly, the complainant took a candid stand that the husband had been taunting her for bringing less dowry, who had a better option of getting Rs.30 lacs in dowry, but during the course of hearing, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that even prior to the marriage, the complainant was in relation with the husband Yogesh, and at one stage, she had levelled charge of rape against him. By now, it is settled law that if, the prosecution evidence on record gives rise to two possible views, the one favouring the accused is to be adopted. In the given facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the trial court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, which arises from the evidence itself, therefore, finding no merit in the appeal, the prayer for grant of leave is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 P.S.Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad