Dismissed

Lallu v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2022CRLA/1848/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt as there was no direct evidence linking them to the crime. Relying on settled principles, the court found the acquittal was based on a probable view and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 1848 of 2010 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Lallu Vs State of U.P. and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1848 of 2010 Appellant :- Lallu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Sanjay Prakash Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

The case is taken up in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant as well as for the respondent-opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶6

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2010 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2008: Ram Narayan and others Vs. State of U.P., allowing the criminal appeal filed by the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (herein) against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Gonda in Criminal Case No. 2483/2007/91: State Vs. Ram Narayan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 70/1990, under Sections 343, 384, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Katra Bazar, District Gonda, whereby the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were convicted and sentenced under Section 343 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 384 I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 506 (2) I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and with default stipulation.

¶8

As per prosecution version, the complainant (present appellant) had gone to his brother-in-law house in the ceremony of Mundan, then on 10.05.1990 in the morning accused along with 10-12 persons enticed him away from his brother-in-law’s house and kept him under his custody. On 14.05.1990 accused no.1-Ram Narayan Tiwari forcibly and illegally made an agreement to sell of the complainant’s land which is six bigha, in his wife’s name . This information regarding enticing away had been given by this brother-in-law Saligram to Sub-Registrare Colonelganj on 11.05.1990.

¶9

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 07.05.2010.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the ground in this appeal that the court below did not appreciate the evidence on record; prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused on the basis of evidence and the judgment was passed without considering the statement of witnesses

¶11

and the case set up by the prosecution and the judgment of the acquittal was passed on surmises and conjectures.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. submits that the present appeal is of the year, 2010. Moreover, there appears no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court below, therefore, appeal may be dismissed. I have heard the learned A.G.A. as well as considered the ground taken by the appellant and gone through the judgment passed by the court below.

¶13

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 and there was no direct evidence produced by the prosecution regarding involvement of the opposite party Nos. 2 , 3 and 4 in the crime.

¶14

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:

¶15

"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 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:

¶16

"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

¶17

erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal."

¶18

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."

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Accordingly, the present appeal against acquittal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 25.8.2022 Arvind

¶25

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.09 16:12:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lallu v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallu v. State of U.P. and 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

State of U.P. Vs Kamal Kishore

U.O.I. Thru. Superintendent of Police C.B.I./a.C.B. Lucknow Vs N.K. Srivastava Nand Kishore Srivastava

Mukesh Kumar Guad Vs State of U.P Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

State of U.P. Vs Namnu @ Ramu and Another

Chand Babu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajaram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others