Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Tafseer and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020GOVA/322/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by the State challenged the acquittal of respondents in a dacoity and arms case. The High Court held that the trial court's view was reasonable and not perverse, refusing to interfere given the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Leave refused; appeal dismissed at the admission stage.

State of U.P. Vs Tafseer and 2 Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No.48

¶2

GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 322 of 2019

¶3

State of Uttar Prade	sh ....	Appellant
	Vs
	…..
1. Tafseer
2. Faraukh
3. Arif alias Mota		Respondents
________________________ For Appellant	________________ : Sri Amit Sinha	________________
For Respondents ________________________	: None ________________	________________

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

¶5

Per: Pritinker Diwaker, J. (27.01.2020)

¶6

Heard on admission.

¶7

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 09.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Amroha in Sessions Trial Nos. 25 of 2014 (State vs. Tafseer and two others), 26 of 2014 (State vs. Tafseer) and 27 of 2014 (State vs. Faraukh) acquitting the respondents of the offence under Sections 398, 401, 307/34 of IPC, further acquitting accused Tafseer and Faraukh under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that on 16.01.2014, while the police party was on patrolling duty, they received information that certain persons are hatching conspiracy to commit dacoity near Meera Sarai. As there was no time for the police party to complete the formalities, without doing so, they reached to the place Meera Sarai and found four persons talking to each other for committing the offence and that

¶9

¶10

they were also waiting for their colleague Ehsan . Further case of the prosecution is that while the police party was trying to apprehend the accused persons, they started firing on them. However, luckily none of the police personnel could sustain injury. At the spot itself, accused persons were arrested by the police and country made pistols have been seized from accused Tafseer and Faraukh. After completing the formalities of seizure, offence under Sections 398, 401, 307 of IPC was registered against all the accused persons, whereas under Section 25 of the Arms Act, separate offence was registered against Tafseer and Faraukh.

¶11

While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against the accused-persons under Sections 398, 401, 307 of IPC and against Tafseer and Faraukh, additional charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed.

¶12

So as to hold accused-persons guilty, prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which, they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

¶13

By the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has acquitted the respondents of all the charges. Hence the present appeal by the State, assailing the acquittal of respondents.

¶14

Counsel for the appellants submits that the trial court has erred in law in acquitting the respondents.

¶15

We have heard State counsel and perused the record.

¶16

Admittedly, the police has failed to establish as to how they received the secret information and who gave such information. It is the case of the prosecution itself that while the police party was on patrolling duty, they received secret information about the preparation of offence by the accused-persons. No such fact has been duly proved by the prosecution as required under the law. As per prosecution case, firearms were used by the accused persons, however, none of the police personnel suffered any such injury. Even the ballistic expert report is not there on record. The seizure of the weapon has also not

¶17

¶18

been found to be proved beyond doubt by the court below.

¶19

Considering all the aspects of the case, learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case that the accused persons were making preparation for committing any offence. The view taken by the court below is one of the possible and plausible view, and it cannot be said to be perverse.

¶20

While considering the scope of interference in an appeal or revision against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views of the evidence are reasonable possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the matter of State of Karnataka vs. K. Gopalkrishna reported in (2005) 9 SCC 291 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, observed as under:

¶21

"In such an appeal the Appellate Court does not lightly disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Court below. If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evnidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the Appellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal."

¶22

In Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus;-

¶23

"31. It has been stated and restated that a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reason. There is plethora of case laws on this proposition and we need not burden this judgment by referring to those decisions. Our purpose would be served by referring to one reasoned pronouncement entitled Dhanapal v. State which is the judgment where most of the earlier decisions laying down the aforesaid principle are referred to. In para 37, propositions laid down in an earlier case are taken note of as under:

¶24

¶25

"37. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , this Court held: ( SCC p. 432 para 42), (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

¶26

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

¶27

3. Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

¶28

4. An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that 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 shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

¶29

5. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

¶30

32. Thereafter, in para 39, the Court curled out five principles and we would like to reproduce the said para hereunder:

¶31

"39. The following principles emerge from the cases above:

¶32

1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

¶33

2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re- appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court.

¶34

3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the

¶35

¶36

trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

¶37

4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

¶38

5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

¶39

In Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737 , the Supreme Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36 and 37 as under:

¶40

"36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record.

¶41

37. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: (SCC p.432 para 42):

¶42

"42....(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that 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 shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

¶43

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

¶44

Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram."

¶45

Considering the above legal position and the factual aspects of the case, we are of the view that the trial Judge was fully justified in

¶46

¶47

acquitting the respondents.

¶48

Taking all the circumstances as it is, leave as prayed for by the State is refused. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶49

Order Date :- 27.01.2020 SK/CM

¶50

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J) (Pritinker Diwaker, J)

State of U.P. v. Tafseer and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Tafseer and 2 Ors.

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

Archana Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

State of U.P. Vs Dharmpal and Anr.

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Karu @ Karan

Beili Devi @ Bela Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harilal Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others