In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. concerning Section 406 IPC, the High Court reaffirmed principles governing appeals against acquittal. Finding the lower court's decision based on probable views and valid reasons, the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal against acquittal was dismissed with 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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51579
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 128 of 2000
Appellant :- Ram Kumari Respondent :- Jaskaran Singh Counsel for Appellant :- B.P. Srivastava,Chandresh Mani Shukla,S.K. Verma,Satendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Girish Kumar Pandey,Praveen Tripathi
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
List is being revised. None appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Sri Hari Shanker Bajpai, learned A.G.A.-I for the State is present.
The present appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.1999 passed by learned A.C.J.M. VII, Lucknow in Case No.1381 of 1999, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow, acquitting the opposite parties from the charges framed against them.
The prosecution case is that the complainant was married to the son of the accused, namely, Radheykrishna and she started living in her in-laws house. Thereafter, her husband died after four years of her marriage and she was thrown out of her inlaw's house after keeping all the jewellery and other items which were given as dowry.
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 24.11.1999.
Learned A.G.A.-I for the State-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 the judgment of the acquittal was passed on surmises and conjectures.
I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned learned A.G.A.-I for the State-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 parties in the crime.
Further, learned A.G.A.-I for the State could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of respondents which is before this Court.
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 :- 3.8.2023 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against an acquittal should be allowed when the lower court found the prosecution case inconclusive and based on surmises.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersReferred¶14
(2016) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
Sambasiva V. State of KeralaReferred¶15
Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Kumari
Jaskaran Singh
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
