Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kori

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2020GOVA/528/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this state appeal against acquittal, the High Court reviewed the trial court's decision to acquit the respondent of rape and false evidence charges. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to lack of injury and unexplained expenses by the prosecutrix. Upholding the principle that acquittal cannot be disturbed if two reasonable views exist, the appeal was dismissed at t

What did the court decide?

The appeal by the State was refused and dismissed at the admission stage, allowing the acquittal.

State of U.P. Vs Dinesh Kori — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. 48

¶2

Government Appeal No. 528 of 2019

¶3

State of U.P.	----	Appellant
	Vs.
Dinesh Kori	----	Respondent

¶4

For Appellant : Sri Awadhesh Shukla, A.G.A. For Respondent : None

¶5

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

¶6

Per: Pritinker Diwaker, J

¶7

(21.01.2020)

¶8

Heard on admission.

¶9

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 06.07.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 2017 (State Vs. Dinesh Kori) acquitting the respondent of the offence under Sections 376 & 506 of IPC.

¶10

As per prosecution case, on 17.08.2017 at 01.35 p.m., FIR, Ex.Ka.2 was lodged by the prosecutrix, alleging in it that on that day, at about 10.00 a.m., when she was cutting grass in the field of the respondent-accused, he caught hold her and after gagging her mouth, committed sexual intercourse. Based on this report, offence under Sections 376 & 506 of I.P.C. was registered against the respondent-accused. Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Sindhuja Singh (PW-4), however, no internal or external injury has been found on her body.

¶11

¶12

While framing charge, trail court has framed charge against the respondent under Sections 376 & 506 of I.P.C.

¶13

So as to hold respondent-accused guilty, prosecution has examined five witnesses. Statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which, he pleaded his innocence and false implication.

¶14

By the impugned judgement, the trial Judge has acquitted the respondent of all the charges. Hence, the present appeal by the State, assailing the acquittal of the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial judge has erred in law in acquitting the respondent. It has been argued that apart from prosecutrix, other witnesses have also seen the accused fleeing from the spot. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None for respondent.

¶15

Proseuctrix in her court statement though has stated that she was forcibly subjected to physical intercourse by the accused, but she also states that she spent Rs.1 Lakh for getting the FIR registered and Rs. 10,000/- for her medical examination. However, she fails to give any description as to how and from where she obtained the said amount. Further, as per prosecutrix, the height of corn plants, in the filed in question, was about two feet but no injury whatsoever has been sustained by the prosecutrix.

¶16

Considering the statement of the prosecutrix, other witnesses and her medical report, the trial court has reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has accordingly acquitted the respondent. The view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view and it cannot be said to be perverse.

¶17

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 reasonably 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

¶18

¶19

under:

¶20

"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 evidence 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."

¶21

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

¶22

"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: -

¶23

"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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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."

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

decision of the trial court.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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."

¶38

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

¶39

"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.

¶40

36. 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 his innocence is further

¶41

¶42

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

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

¶46

Date: 21.01.2020 SK

¶47

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

State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kori

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

Smt. Divli Devi and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vipin Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tarachand Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Sri Ranjeet Verma and 2 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Dharmendra and 4 Ors.