Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Smt. Snehlata Tyagi

Allahabad HC22 May 2018GOVA/555/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a government appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against an acquittal, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. Upholding the trial court's finding based on the double presumption of innocence, the court held that since an acquittal is based on a reasonably possible view, it cannot be disturbed unless findings are perverse or contrary to evidence.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal rejected and the pending government appeal dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Smt. Snehlata Tyagi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 555 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Smt. Snehlata Tyagi Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

This Government Appeal has been filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. alongwith an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgement and order dated 3.2.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Meerut in Session Trial No. 41 of 2017 (State vs, Smt. Snehlata Tyagi) arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2016, under Section 304 IPC, P.S. Saroorpur, District- Meerut, whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence under the aforesaid section.

¶7

Heard learned A.G.A. on the application seeking leave to appeal and perused the material on record.

¶8

Perusal of the record shows that the present case has lodged on the basis of an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has been registered after eight days of the incident. It is further evident that in the present case neither the inquest has been performed nor an autopsy was conducted on the person of the deceased, as such the exact cause of death could not be ascertained. The first information report has been lodged after the last rites of the victim had been performed. Furthermore, there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Neither any scissors or blade, by which the operation is said to have been performed, have been recovered and the child born at the time of delivery is hale and hearty, however the victim is said to have died on account of excessive bleeding, but the blood stained clothes have not been given to the Investigating Officer at the time of incident.

¶9

It is further evident that the manner in which the incident has taken place, has been changed from time to time and is in-consistent

¶10

¶11

and does not inspire confidence.

¶12

On the contrary, learned AGA has submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective and the acquittal order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

¶13

The trial court while discussing the evidence has given cogent and sound reasons for acquitting the accused and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the observation/findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court. The view taken by the learned trial court is a possible view. Even if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and other towards their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted and the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed by the appellate court. The reason being that while passing the order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced

¶14

In Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujrat; 1996 (9) SCC 225 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : -

¶15

"...in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocence unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is, re-enforced and strengthened by the trial court......."

¶16

In Mahadeo Laxman Sarane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 705 , the Apex Court has observed that : -

¶17

"It is true, that the settled legal position is that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the accused and the other against him. In such

¶18

¶19

a case if the trial court takes a view in favour of the accused, the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal."

¶20

In C. Antony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 , the Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-

¶21

"Unless the findings of trial court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of the material on record."

¶22

In Sirajuddin Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 4 SCC 375 , the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle in the following words:-

¶23

"Where trial Court's order of acquittal is based on a reasonably possible view, High court should not, as a rule of prudence, disturb the acquittal."

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances in wake of the above cited legal position, we do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant.

¶25

The application seeking leave to appeal is rejected and consequently the appeal is dismissed.

¶26

22.5.2018

¶27

KU/Nadim

State of U.P. v. Smt. Snehlata Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Smt. Snehlata Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mahabir Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Naresh

State of U.P. Vs Liyakat and 3 Others

Lalu @ Mohit Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.