Dismissed¶23

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

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024A378/17/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal; Section 378 Cr.P.C.; presumption of innocence fortified after acquittal; interference only where acquittal view erroneous/perverse; Sadhu Saran Singh (2016) 4 SCC 357; Sambasiva (1998 SCC (Cri) 1320); Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C.; Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989; Session Trial No. 299 of 1997; Case Crime No. 260 of 1994; Police Station Gilaula, District Bahraich; State of U.P. v. Jagdish & Ors.; Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act) Bahraich; acquittal dated 10.10.2013; no direct evidence; A.G.A. pointed out no infirmity; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Shamim Ahmed, J.; 2024:AHC-LKO:20744; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal against acquittal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. ¶23

State of U.P. Vs Jagdish and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal against acquittal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal dated 10.10.2013 passed by the court below was a probable view based on the material on record, or an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits warranting interference in the State's appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Court's answer

The prosecution failed to establish that the crime in question was committed by the accused.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

There was no direct evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the involvement of the opposite parties in the crime.

¶14

Key takeaways

The learned A.G.A. for the State could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents.ratio¶15
With the acquittal of the accused persons the presumption of innocence stands fortified, and very strong and cogent reasons must exist for interfering with a judgment of acquittal.ratio¶21
The view taken by the court below was a probable and logical view based on valid reasons; the acquittal judgment cannot be said to be illegal, illogical, improbable, or based on erroneous views or against the settled position of law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

State appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.10.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act], Bahraich, in Session Trial No. 299 of 1997, State Vs. Shiv Prasad (deceased during trial) & ors., arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 1994 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (x), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Gilaula, District Bahraich. None appeared for the opposite parties even in revised call. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the crime was committed by the accused and that there was no direct evidence of the opposite parties' involvement; the learned A.G.A. could point out no illegality or infirmity in the acquittal. Relying on Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2016) 4 SCC 357, the Court held that an appeal against acquittal stands on a different footing from an appeal against conviction, that the presumption of innocence stands fortified upon acquittal, and that interference is warranted only where the view below is erroneous or perverse. Holding the view taken by the court below to be a probable and logical view based on valid reasons, the Court found no hope of success in the appeal and dismissed it, with no order as to costs. (Shamim Ahmed, J.; Order Date 1.3.2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20744

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 17 of 2014

¶4

Applicant :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Jagdish And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pawan Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Even the case is taken up in revised call, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite parties.

¶7

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

¶8

The present appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2013 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act], Bahraich, in Session Trial No. 299 of 1997, State Vs. Shiv Prasad (deceased during trial) & ors., arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 1994, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, I.P.C., and Section 3(1) (x), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Gilaula, District Bahraich, acquitting the opposite parties from the charges framed against them.

¶9

The prosecution case starts with an F.I.R. lodged by the informant, stating therein that his house is situated near the house of the appellants. The appellants want to grab his vacant land forcefully, regarding which a civil suit is also running. Due to this enmity, on 01.11.1994 at about 7:00 a.m. when the informant was sitting at his door, the accused/opp.parties came there, yielded with lathi-danda, and started giving abuses to him in the name of mother and sister. When the informant stopped him from abusing, they started beating him with kicks and fists. On alarm, the informant's father, nephew and several other persons came there and rescued him. In the incident, right hand finger of the informant's father got broken. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. In the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶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 10.10.2013.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant submits that the court below did not appreciate the evidence on record. He further

¶12

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.

¶13

I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant and gone through the judgment passed by the court below.

¶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 and there was no direct evidence produced by the prosecution regarding involvement of the opposite parties in the crime.

¶15

Further, learned A.G.A. 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.

¶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 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:

¶18

"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."

¶19

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."

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Accordingly, the present appeal against acquittal is dismissed .

¶24

No order as to costs.

¶25

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

¶26

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶27

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 A.Nigam

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sourabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Prabhakar Kushwaha and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Pankaj Alias Sunil Shukla and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

State of U.P Vs Ram Singh

State of U.P. Vs Shatrohan and 2 Others

Mohd.Zameer Vs State of U.P.