The High Court dismissed an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the trial court had accepted a probable view preventing interference, citing precedents on the stringent standards for setting aside acquittals.
The appeal against acquittal is dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2484 of 2010
Appellant :- Ram Naresh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- H.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
This appeal pertains to the year 2010 and more than 12 years have elapsed but till date no notice has been issued to the respondents 2 and 3 although the appeal has been admitted. This Court feels appropriate to decide the appeal at this stage.
The case is taken up in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
The present appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8 Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2007, Krishna Shanker and others Vs. State of U.P. and others setting aside the conviction order dated 18.6.2007 under sections 323,325,504, 506(2) IPC passed in Criminal Case No. 371 of 2007 and acquitting the opposite parties 2 and 3 of the charges framed against them under the aforesaid sections.
According to the prosecution case on 11/08/1996 at 6 PM when complainant/ appellant was looking after his animals at his door, accused respondents 2 and 3 started to make boundary in the sahan land of the appellant and when appellant objected from construction the boundary in his sahan, accused respondents 2 and 3 and one Shrimati Bindshewari started beating the appellant by bricks and stones, lathi and fawda, resulting the appellant received injuries and his left finger got fractured. On making noise of appellant, Ram Lakhan, Suresh and other persons reached the place of occurrence and interferred with. The appellant on the same day went to police station for lodging the FIR but he was challaned under sections 151,107,116 CrPC and after getting bail, the appellant was medically examined and after receiving medical examination report and X-ray report he approached the concerned police station but FIR was not lodged thereafter the appellant moved a written application to superintendent of police Raibareli on 11/10/1996 but in vain. The appellant made a complaint to the concerned court. The Court after recording the statements of complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C respectively summoned the accused respondents under the aforesaid sections.
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 05-08-2010.
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 and the case set up by the prosecution and the judgment of acquittal was passed on surmises and conjectures.
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.
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 and 3 in the crime.
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:
"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:
"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."
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.
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.
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.
Accordingly, the present appeal against acquittal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for its compliance.
Order Date :- 23.8.2022 GSY
Digitally signed by GULAB Date: 2022.09.19 11:42:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below resulted in a miscarriage of justice warranting interference.
Whether the appellate court was justified in letting stand the acquittal of the accused in this appeal miscellaneous.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersFollowed¶16
(2016) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
Sambasiva V. State of KeralaFollowed¶17
Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Naresh
State Of U.P.
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
