Dismissed

Central Bureau of Investigation through Inspector v. Brijendra Pal Singh and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2022A378/431/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal. It held that the trial court's acquittal was a probable view based on a weakness in the prosecution case and lacked merit for interference. Leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.

Central Bureau of Investigation through… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 431 of 2006 Applicant :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Inspector Opposite Party :- Brijendra Pal Singh And 3 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Bireshwar Nath,Amarjeet Jeet Singh Rakhr,Shiv P. Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Even in the revised call, none appears on behalf of opposite parties.

¶6

Heard Shri Shiv P. Shukla, the learned counsel for the appellantC.B.I. and perused the material available on record.

¶7

By means of the present application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., the appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation, has sought grant of leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2005 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Lucknow Camp, Moradabad acquitting the accused-respondents in Case No. 6 of 1996, arising out of R.C. No. 9 to 12 (S) of 1995 SIC-IV now SCR-III, New Delhi, C.B.I. through Inspector Vs. Brijendra Pal Singh and others, under Sections 120-B read with 182 I.P.C., Police Station C.B.I., Dehradun, District Moradabad.

¶8

According to the prosecution version, on 1/2.10.1994 a large number of people for taking part in an agitation were going to Delhi by buses to attend a rally in support of a separate Uttarakhand State. On arrival at Rampur bypass in Muzaffar Nagar, U.P., their buses were stopped by the District Administration and the people were dispersed by the police. Accused, Sub Inspector Bijendra Pal Singh, Constable Brij Raj Singh, Constable Satpal Singh and Constable Gyan Chand, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, showed false recovery of illegal arms and ammunitions from the abandoned buses of Uttarakhand supporters at Rampur Tiraha in District Muzaffar Nagar on 02.10.1994 and registered Case Crime Nos. 156/94, 157/94, 158/84 and 155/94 dated 02.10.1994 at Police Station Chapar, District Moradabad, under Section 25 of Arms Act, against unknown Uttarakhand protestors. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313 C.P.C. denied their guilt.

¶9

¶10

The court below after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, passed the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.08.2005 .

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the court below did not appreciate the evidence on record. He further submits that prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused on the basis of evidence. The judgment was passed without considering the statement of witnesses and the case set up by the prosecution and was passed on surmises and conjectures.

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the judgment passed by the trial court.

¶13

The present appeal is of the year, 2006.

¶14

In the present case from the statements given by the witnesses produced by the prosecution, I found that prosecution has failed to establish that the crime in question has been committed by the accused-opposite parties.

¶15

Further, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of opposite parties which is before this Court.

¶16

Further, this Court observed that an appeal against acquittal stands on a different footing from the appeal against conviction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 has considered this difference and has observed in paragraph nos.20 and 21 as under:

¶17

"20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can raise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while

¶18

¶19

enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held:

¶20

"7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal."

¶21

The Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative."

¶22

In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, the impugned judgment has to be considered from the point of view whether the view taken by the court below was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits.

¶23

A criminal trial proceeds with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons. With the acquittal of the accused persons this presumption of innocence stands fortified. So very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of acquittal.

¶24

¶25

Keeping in view the aforesaid weakness of the prosecution case, as noted by the court below, I am of the view that the view taken by the court below was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the court below cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable and not based on material on record or is based on erroneous views and is against the settled position of law. So, this Court is satisfied that there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for.

¶26

Leave to appeal is refused.

¶27

Application for leave to appeal is rejected.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal does not survive, and in view of above, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶29

No order as to costs.

¶30

Copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for its compliance.

¶31

Order Date :- 22.8.2022

¶32

Mustaqeem

¶33

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.09.14 16:35:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Central Bureau of Investigation through Inspector v. Brijendra Pal Singh and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bureau of Investigation through Inspector v. Brijendra Pal Singh and 3 Ors.

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

Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko

Smt. Phool Mati W/O Late Sri Ram Sawaroop and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Lallu S/O Karamat (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Raju Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Home, Lko.

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Amarjeet S/O Shri Asharam Goswamii Vs State of U.P. Thru the Secy Home Deptt Lko