SC Declines Interference in Dowry Death Acquittal, Reiterates Limited Scope in Appeals Against Acquittal
“We have carefully perused the record and are of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court suffer from neither legal infirmity nor perversity,” the bench noted;

The Supreme Court has reiterated that interference in an appeal against acquittal is warranted only when the findings of the lower courts are perverse, or when the evidence clearly points to the guilt of the accused with no plausible alternative view.
A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale upheld the acquittal of the accused in a dowry death case, while noting that the conduct of the deceased’s family members, particularly their failure to raise any suspicion immediately after the incident—significantly weakened the prosecution's case.
The Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Brijesh Singh, challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated October 25, 2024, which had affirmed the acquittal of the accused. The petitioner had previously contested the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, dated August 14, 2014, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302/149, 304B, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
As per the record, the deceased, Smt. Suchita Singh, sister of the complainant, was married to respondent no. 2, Ajit Singh, on December 12, 2008, according to Hindu rites. On October 5, 2010, she died by suicide at her matrimonial home.
The respondent-husband had immediately informed the deceased's maternal family of the incident. The inquest proceedings were conducted in the presence of her father, a serving Deputy Superintendent of Police, and her brother, the complainant, who is a highly educated individual.
However, the Court observed that neither the complainant nor other family members expressed any suspicion or raised objections during the inquest or cremation, which took place in their presence. The First Information Report (FIR) was filed four days later, on October 9, 2010. Both the trial court and the High Court found the delay indicative of an afterthought.
After examining the evidence, the trial court had acquitted all accused (respondents no. 2 to 6), and the High Court, while hearing the appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, re-evaluated the entire evidence and affirmed the trial court's conclusions.
“We have carefully perused the record and are of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court suffer from neither legal infirmity nor perversity,” the bench noted.
Reiterating the settled legal position, the Court observed: “Interference in an appeal against acquittal is permissible only when the view taken by the courts below is perverse or where no two views are possible and the only logical conclusion from the evidence is the guilt of the accused.”
“In the present case, the view taken by the courts below acquitting the respondents is both permissible and plausible. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere and decline to entertain this special leave petition, which is devoid of merit,” the bench concluded.
Case Title: Brijesh Singh Vs State of UP & Ors.