Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Chandrapal Singh and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2018GOVA/8116/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the State of U.P.'s appeal against acquittal. Upholding the trial judge's rejection of the prosecution case due to witness contradictions and infirmities, the Court ruled that the high court cannot re-appreciate evidence to reverse a supported acquittal without grave infirmities.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal refused; application rejected; appeal dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Chandrapal Singh and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 51 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8116 of 2006 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Chandrapal Singh & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2006, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.9, Bulandshahar, in Session Trial No.37 of 2005, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, by means of which the present accusedrespondents namely Chandrapal Singh and Rishipal, have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 120-B, 364, 384, IPC.

¶5

We have heard Sri Rajesh Mishra, counsel for the applicant at length and have perused the finding as has been recorded by the trial court concerned also. Needless to say that the court has given cogent reasons for arriving at the findings based upon which the verdict of acquittal have been returned. The finding of the trial court shows that the entire prosecution story has been disbelieve by the trial court concerned, in view of the contradictions contained in the testimonies of the witnesses. Moreover, it is come on record that a case was registered against the victim of embezzlement of Rs.40,000/-, and thus the entire story was built up by the victim himself. Learned counsel for the appellant has further strongly pressed the application with the contention that the prosecution evidence has not been appreciated by the court concerned in its correct perspective. He has submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial judge is against the evidence on record. He next submitted that the learned trial judge has committed a patent error of law and ignored the material evidence on record while holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused respondents beyond

¶6

¶7

the reasonable doubt.

¶8

After perusal of the impugned judgment which shows that the trial court after a thorough marshalling of the facts of the case and a microscopic scrutiny of the evidence on record has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused respondents and the findings recorded by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence and supported by cogent reasons.

¶9

It is an established position of law that if the court below has taken a view which is a possible view in a reasonable manner, then the same shall not be interfered with.

¶10

At this stage, reference may be made to the recent judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors reported in 2018 (5) SCC 790 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

¶11

Before we proceed further to peruse the finding of the High Court, it is relevant to discuss the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court should give due regard to the findings and the conclusions reached by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings itself. This principle has further been elucidated in the case of Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186, para 13, wherein this Court observed that: “The High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions

¶12

¶13

of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶14

It is not in dispute that the presumption of innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened against the acquitted accused by the judgment in his favor. [Vide Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 in para. 94].

¶15

27. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court should not have re-appreciated evidences in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities. No specific assertion could be proved regarding the role and involvement of the accused persons. Further, certain actions of the victim-respondents themselves are dubious, for instance admitting themselves later in a Multispeciality hospital without proper cause. It has further come to our notice that respondents have

¶16

¶17

already compromised and have executed a compromise deed to that extent, though the same is not the basis for our conclusion.

¶18

Reference may also be made to the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1961 SC 715 , Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 09.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2011, Basappa Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 27.02.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2014, Ashok Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Decided on 15.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2005, Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P. 2012 AIR SCW 2990 and Murugesan v. State through Inspector of Police reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5627 .

¶19

Thus, in view of aforesaid consistent legal position as elaborated above and also in view of the fact that learned A.G.A. has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings so recorded in the impugned order, no interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted.

¶20

Accordingly leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

¶21

Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.11.2018/VKG

State of U.P. v. Chandrapal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Chandrapal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha and Another Vs state of u.p. and 2 others

State of U.P. Vs Mahendra and Another

State of U.P. Vs Shyam Pal and Others

State of U.P. Vs Pradeep Chandra

State of U.P. Vs Bihari Lal Nishad and Another

State of U.P. Vs Sanjeew