Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu

Allahabad HC23 Dec 2021GOVA/1000189/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court examined the rejection of the State's application for leave to appeal against an acquittal. The court held that the trial court's decision to acquit the accused was a probable and logical view based on the evidence. The double presumption of innocence and lack of incriminating material precluded any interference, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for grant of leave to appeal was refused; memorandum of appeal dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Chief Justice’s Court Additional Cause List Serial No. 4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Lucknow)

¶4

***** U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 189 of 2007** State of U.P. ...Applicant Through: Ms. Smiti Sahay, Additional Government Advocate

¶5

vs.

¶6

Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu ...Opposite party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JUDGE

¶8

ORDER

¶9

HON’BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

¶10

Challenge in the present acquittal appeal is to the judgment and order dated 4.1.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track, Court No. 2, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 1364 of 2001 (State Vs. Awadhesh Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2003 under Sections 302 and 404 IPC, P.S. Kachona, District Hardoi by which the learned trial court has convicted accused Smt. Meenu Singh and

¶11

2 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 189 of 2007

¶12

Shishupal Singh under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹ 5,000/- each, in default thereof, three months additional sentence (each) whereas the trial court had acquitted accused Smt. Meenu Singh and Shishupal Singh under Section 404 of IPC. Further, the learned trial court has also acquitted accused Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu under Sections 302/34 and 404 IPC. Against the acquittal of Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu the present appeal has been filed by the State Government with application for leave to appeal.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the informant Km. Poonam Saxena lodged the FIR before the police station concerned with contention that accused Meenu Singh wife of Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu Singh entered into her house as tenant on pretext that she is a single married lady as divorce proceedings are pending. During her stay there she enticed the brother of informant in her love affair and started demanding money from him. She made a plan to grab the property of her brother and accordingly on 10.6.2003 she went to Village Masudha along with brother of informant on his Motorcycle No. UP 32 AM 3491 on pretext to attend the marriage function of her relative. After that his brother did not return to his house. On 11.6.2003 she received the information telephonically that the dead body of her brother was found near village Masudha. The informant further mentioned in FIR that her brother was wearing three gold rings, wrist watch, a golden chain and was having ₹ 6,000/- in cash with him which were missing. The informant suspected that her brother had been killed by Meenu Singh in connivance with her husband Awadhesh Singh with object to grab and occupy the properties of deceased.

¶14

The investigation of the case was done by S.I. Narendra Singh Bhadoria, who after completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet against accused persons Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu Singh, Shishupal Singh and Meenu Singh. The name of Shishupal Singh came into light during the course of investigation.

¶15

3 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 189 of 2007

¶16

During trial, on behalf of prosecution Ram Prakash Singh, Km. Poonam Saxena, Ramendra Singh, S.I., Vinod Kumar Pandey, Dr. Arun Kumar Maurya, Janak Pratak Singh, S.I. Yogendra Pratap Singh, S.I. Narendra Singh Bhadoria and Inspector C.B.C.I.D. Mohd. Javed Siddiqui deposed as witnesses PW-1 to PW-9.

¶17

After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied their involvement in offence and stated that the witnesses had given false evidence against them due to enmity.

¶18

The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, considering the evidence available on record, convicted the accused persons Smt. Meenu Singh and Shishupal Singh under Section 302/34 and acquitted Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu Singh under Section 302/34 and 404 IPC against which the present appeal has been filed by the State Government.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the State on application for leave under section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. and perused the record.

¶20

Learned AGA has argued that although it is a case of circumstantial evidence but there was sufficient evidence on record showing the involvement of all accused persons. The prosecution had successfully proved the offence against all the accused persons but the trial court erred in law acquitting accused Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu Singh.

¶21

The trial court convicted Meenu Singh and Shishupal Singh under Sections 302/34 IPC. From the prosecution evidence available on record, it has been found that Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu Singh (the husband of accused Meenu Singh) was living separately from his wife and a decree of divorce was passed by court concerned. The fact also came before the court that accused Meenu Singh got married with deceased Rakesh Saxena and there was a child which was born out of the wedlock. Although, it is a case of circumstantial evidence but neither

¶22

4 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 189 of 2007

¶23

anybody had seen Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu Singh with deceased Rakesh Saxena soon before his murder nor any incriminating material was brought on record showing his involvement in the offence. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding involvement of accused Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu Singh, the trial court acquitted him from the charges under Sections 302/34 and 404 IPC. In the light of material available on record, it transpires that the view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view and it cannot be said to be perverse.

¶24

As a settled principle, an appellate court has full power to review and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. It is also required to be kept 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 been acquitted after trial, the presumption of his innocence is strengthened. Thereafter, 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.

¶25

In view of above, the impugned judgment has to be considered from the point of view that whether the view taken by the trial court was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits. The record indicates that the view taken by the trial court was a probable and logical view, which is based on proper assessment of evidence available on record. The judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal. We are of the considered view that there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for. Hence, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is hereby refused and the application is rejected.

¶26

5 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 189 of 2007

¶27

Since application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the memorandum of appeal also does not survive and stands dismissed.

¶28

(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.) Lucknow December 23, 2021 Amit/AHA

¶29

Whether the order is speaking:Yes/No Whether the order is reportable:Yes/No

¶30

Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.02.25 13:30:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. v. Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Ram Asrey and 2 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Nazim Ali and Another

State of U.P. Vs Gulam Husain and Another

Baijnath Tiwari and Others Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Jitendra

State of U.P. Vs Phagu