This appeal under Section 378 CrPC challenged an acquittal by the Sessions Court for murders under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. The High Court held that the trial court's view was reasonable in the absence of direct evidence against the accused.
The appeal against acquittal was dismissed with no interference with the trial court judgment.
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. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20741
Court No. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 64 of 2014
Applicant :- State Of U.P Opposite Party :- Ram Singh Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Even the case is taken up in revised call, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party.
Heard the learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant and perused the material available on record.
The present appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 08, Sitapur, in Session Trial No. 1124 of 2010, State Vs. Ram Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 448 of 2009, under Sections 498A, 306, I.P.C., Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur, acquitting the opposite party from the charge framed against him.
The prosecution case starts with an F.I.R. lodged by the informant Jay Pal Singh, that he had married his daughter about four years ago as per Hindu rites and rituals. The in-laws of his daughter started cruelty with her due to demand of bufallo, C.D., T.V., as dowry. The daughter persuaded them many times, but they kept on beating her. On 11.5.2009, Ram Singh, Arvind and wife of Arvind beaten up the informant's daughter, killed her and hanged her to death in her room. The information was given next day by a relative. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against against the opp. party. In the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
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 20.12.2013.
Learned A.G.A. 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. 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. 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.
( Shamim Ahmed, J. )
Order Date :- 1.3.2024 A.Nigam
Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal when the evidence fails to establish the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the trial court's judgment was based on erroneous views against settled legal positions regarding appeals against acquittal.
What is the proper scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersExplained¶15
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2016) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
Sambasiva V. State of KeralaExplained¶16
Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 · Who else cites this
State Of U.P
Ram Singh
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Shamim Ahmed
Parties & counsel
