State appealed against acquittal of accused charged with kidnapping and abduction. High Court analyzed precedents on appellate powers. Found evidence did not conclusively implicate accused. Dismissed appeal.
Appeal against acquittal dismissed; record to be returned to court below.
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.
A.F.R.
Court No. - 45
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1544 of 2006 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Kashmir Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard learned Government Pleader for the appellant.
2. This appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC challenges the acquittal of the accused, who was charged with commission of offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The prosecution was moved into motion by a written report dated 18.6.1996 at P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri and it was alleged that the sister of the complainant, who was 14 years of age, when they went to ease in the field, accused Kashmir Singh, Pappu and Girish Chandra enticed away the prosecutrix, namely, the sister of the complainant. The complainant's mother started searching the prosecutrix, but the prosecutrix end the accused absconded and the complainant did not lodge the complaint because of the fear of being defamed. It was then disclosed that the accused had kidnapped the minor and therefore, the case being Crime no. 117 of 1996 under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was lodged. The police investigated the matter and the victim/ prosecutrix was recovered on 27.9.1996 from a village known as Bhanupura. She got her statement recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate. On investigation being over, charge sheet was laid before the Magisterial Court. The Magistrate being satisfied that the
case was triable by the Court of Sessions, as Section 376 IPC was subsequently added from the medical test of the prosecutrix, charge sheet was submitted. As the case being triable by the Court of Sessions, the accused were summoned and they denied the charges. On denying the charges, they were set up for trial.
4. The prosecution examined about 5 witnesses of fact and the prosecutrix herself, which are follows:-
| 1. Dhani Ram | P.W.-1 |
|---|---|
| 2. Smt. Baikunthi Devi | P.W.-2 |
| 3. Dr. Sunita Bahodha | P.W.-3 |
| 4. Keshav Dev | P.W.-4 |
| 5. Shiv Autar Pandey | P.W.-5 |
| 6. victim Km. Urmila | P.W.-6 |
5. Document was filed, which was sought to be proved by leading evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the State has relied on the judgment of Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , Laws (SC) 2021 55 and the case of The State of Gujarat vs. B.L. Dave [(2021) 2 SCC 735] and has contended that this is a clear case, where despite the contour of acquittal, it is very clear that the prosecutrix, who was admittedly minor in age, her consent even if cannot be considered as consent and a heinous crime against the society has been committed by the accused. The child was recovered after three months and she had a featus of 5/ 8 months old, which shows the heinousness committed by the respondents and the case is similar to that of case of Guru Dutt Pathak (supra). It is further submitted that acquittal is perverse. The victim namely the
2 of 9
prosecutrix was offered made to undergo the agony. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence recorded that the accused were the persons, who had enticed the girl, namely the prosecutrix from the custody of the parents. The evidence is not properly weighed by the learned Judge, while acquitting the accused.
7. Despite summons being served, none has appeared for the accused, hence we have heard this appeal and perused the record.
8. The principles, which would govern and regulate the hearing of an appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal, passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
“ 54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below.”
9. Further, in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415 , the Apex Court laid down the following principles;
“ 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
3 of 9
[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 curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasis 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.”
10. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/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.
11. Even in the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and another, reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision, the Court has observed as under:
“ 16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the
4 of 9
appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.”
12. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh and others, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s vs. State of MP, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589 . Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled.
13. In the case of Luna Ram vs. Bhupat Singh and others, reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10 and 11 has held as under:
“ 10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition.
11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence.”
14. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and another vs. State Representatives by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu , reported in AIR 2013 SC 321, the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:
“ 4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court,
5 of 9
even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while hoosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573]”
15. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy, AIR 1981, SC 1417, wherein it is held as under:
“ ... This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”
16. In a recent decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivasharanappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, JT 2013 (7) SC 66 has held as under:
“ That appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence.”
17. Further, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153, the Apex Court has held as under:
“ The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by
6 of 9
bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convincing the accused person.”
18. The Apex Court recently in Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 7 SCC 219, has laid down the principles for laying down the powers of appellate court in re-appreciating the evidence in a case where the State has preferred an appeal against acquittal, which read as follows:
" 10. It is by now well settled that the Appellate Court hearing the appeal filed against the judgment and order of acquittal will not overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if the Appellate Court does not find substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. If the Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's decision was based on erroneous view of law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if the entire approach of the Trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of the ballistic expert etc. the same may be construed as substantial and compelling reasons and the first appellate court may interfere in the order of acquittl. However, if the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Court generally will not interfere with the order of acquittal particularly in the absence of the aforementioned factors.
.........................It is relevant to note the observations of this Court in the case of Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606, which reads thus:
" 21. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice
7 of 9
which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not."
19. The Apex Court recently in Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750 , has held that the appellate court is reversing the trial court’s order of acquittal, it should give proper weight and consideration to the presumption of innocence in favour of accused, and to the principle that such a presumption sands reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court and in Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019) 18 SCC 161 held that judgment of acquittal, where two views are possible, should not be set aside, even if view formed by appellate court may be a more probable one, interference with acquittal can only be justified when it is based on a perverse view.
20. In the case in hand, evidence was recorded after six years of the incident. The accused before us were alleged to have accompanied Pappu, the main accused, who had unfortunately passed away during the trial. The allegations against the present accused are that they had positively made the prosecutrix sit on the motorcycle and taken her to the village. She stayed with Pappu for about five months. There is no role of the present accused for enticing away to the prosecutrix or took her on the motorcycle forcibly.
21. Unfortunately, the medical evidence does not categorically show the age of the prosecutrix. As far as the medical evidence of Dr. Sunita is concerned, she has examined her, but she has mentioned that she could not make out what was the age of the prosecutrix.
22. Learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. We are convinced that learned court-below has
8 of 9
given cogent reason in the judgment impugned and we have no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned trial Judge. All these facts are sufficient for us to concur with the learned trial-court.
23. The appeal sans merits and is dismissed . The record of proceedings be sent back to the court below.
24. We are thankful to Sri Goswami, learned A.G.A. for ably assisting the Court for the State.
Order Date :- 27.11.2021 N.S.Rathour
9 of 9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside the trial court's acquittal and convicting the accused.
Whether the appellate court can re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
Whether the evidence and facts disclosed a clear case against the accused warranting conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶13
Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Laws (SC) 2021 55
The State of Gujarat vs. B.L. DaveReferred¶13
The State of Gujarat vs. B.L. Dave [(2021) 2 SCC 735] · Who else cites this
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and anotherExplained¶17
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39 · Who else cites this
Chandrappa vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶19
Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415 · Who else cites this
State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and anotherExplained¶28
State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and another, (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75 · Who else cites this
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh and othersReferred¶31
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh and others, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 · Who else cites this
Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s vs. State of MPReferred¶31
Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s vs. State of MP, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589 · Who else cites this
Luna Ram vs. Bhupat Singh and othersExplained¶33
Luna Ram vs. Bhupat Singh and others, (2009) SCC 749 · Who else cites this
Mookkiah and another vs. State Representatives by the Inspector of Police, Tamil NaduExplained¶36
Mookkiah and another vs. State Representatives by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 321 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka vs. HemareddyExplained¶40
State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy, AIR 1981, SC 1417 · Who else cites this
Shivasharanappa and others vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶42
Shivasharanappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, JT 2013 (7) SC 66 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal VermaReferred¶44
State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153 · Who else cites this
Jayaswamy vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶48
Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 7 SCC 219 · Who else cites this
Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors.Explained¶50
Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606 · Who else cites this
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of GujaratExplained¶54
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750
Samsul Haque v. State of AssamExplained¶54
Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019) 18 SCC 161 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of U.P.
Kashmir Singh
Another
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
