A bench dismissed two appeals (one by the State and one by the complainant) challenging the acquittal of accused persons. The court held that the trial judge's acquittal was based on a plausible view of evidence, finding no bony or grievous injuries proved, and thus no reason to interfere.
Leave to appeal was refused; both appeals were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| Government Appeal No. 453 of 20 | Court No. 48 19 |
|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh ----- Vs |
Appellants |
| 1. Chandrapal | |
| 2. Dinesh | |
| 3. Jitendra | |
| 4. Ramroop ----- |
Respondents |
| ______________________________________________ For Appellants : Sri Amit Sinha |
______ |
| For Respondent : |
|
| AND | |
| Criminal Misc. Application U/s 372 Cr.P.C. (Leav 248 of 2019 |
e to Appeal) No. |
| Ajeej Khan ----- Vs |
Appellant |
| State of U.P. ----- |
Respondent |
| ______________________________________________ For Appellant : Sri NPS Chauhan |
______ |
| For Respondent/State : Sri Amit Sinha, AGA ______________________________________________ |
__________ |
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.
Per: Pritinker Diwaker, J.
(03.02.2020)
2
the accused Chandrapal of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3
at least suitable compensation ought to have been awarded to the victims.
4
"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."
13. In Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal , reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus;-
"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: -
"37. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , this Court held: ( SCC p. 432 para 42):
5
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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."
32. Thereafter, in para 39, the Court curled out five principles and we would like to reproduce the said para hereunder:
"39. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
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.
2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re- appreciate the entire evidence on
6
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.
3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the 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.
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.
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."”
"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.
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....(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
7
his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(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."
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."
Dated: 03.02.2020 C.Mani/ nethra
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J) (Pritinker Diwaker, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing appeals against the trial court's acquittal of the accused.
Whether the appellate court had substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the trial court's finding of acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka vs. K. GopalkrishnaExplained¶27
State of Karnataka vs. K. Gopalkrishna (2005) 9 SCC 291 · Who else cites this
Sudershan Kumar v. State of HimachalExplained¶29
Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal (2014) 15 SCC 666 · Who else cites this
Chandrappa v. State of KarnatakaExplained¶31
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
Dilawar Singh v. State of HaryanaExplained¶47
Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 737 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Shera RamExplained¶54
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Uttar Pradesh
Ajeej Khan
Chandrapal
Dinesh
Jitendra
Ramroop
Pritinker Diwaker
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
