A single-judge bench allowed condonation of delay but refused leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., finding no perversity or error in the lower court's view that the prosecution failed to prove involvement.
Leave to appeal rejected; appeal dismissed.
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.
1
Court No. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 66 of 2014 Applicant :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Sri Pal Patel And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
(C.M.Application No. 39140 of 2014)
The case is taken up in the revised call.
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C.
The Stamp Reporter has reported that this appeal is beyond time by three months thirteen days.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State-appellant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, leaned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 2 and perused the material available on record.
The reason shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient and convincing.
The application of condonation of delay is allowed.
Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Order Date :- 13.02.2024 Arvind
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13594
Court No. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 66 of 2014 Applicant :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Sri Pal Patel And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
The case is taken up in the revised call.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State-appellant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, leaned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 2 and perused the material available on record.
The present leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Court of learned Session Judge, Court No.07, Pratapgarh acquitting the respondents from charges under Sections 363/34, 366/34 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 682/11, arising out of Case Crime No. 79/11, Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.
As per the prosecution version, Mrs. Lalita Devi, wife of Hiralal residing in Khushhalgarh village, Raniganj police station, Pratapgarh district, presented an original document to Mr. Balram Vind, resident of Gram Ramapur Suwasa, Pratapgarh, and signed it on 22.03.2011, and submitted it to Mr. Ramksh, Inspector-in-charge, Raniganj, Parataphgarh, stating that a land dispute was going between complainant and her lessee, Mr. Shripal, leading to daily conflicts with her helper, including Dulari Devi, Bitola, Sunil Kumar and Rajbhadur. Additionally, it was stated that on 02-02-2011 at 7:00 pm, when complainant returned home after work, she found her minor daughter, victim, aged about 16 years, missing from home, and upon inquiring from her daughter Archana, she came to know that Bitola was talking to her sister. Following this, complainant went to Bitola’s house, where Raghuveer, son of Rajbahur, and Bheepa, son of Shripal, residents of Khushhalgand, Raniganj Police Station, District Pratapgarh, were discussing matters, upon questioning them, they informed the complainant that her daughter had eloped with Sunil Kumar, son of Rajpati.
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 20.09.2013
Learned A.G.A. for the State 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.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 2 submits that the present appeal is of the year, 2014. Moreover, there appears no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court below, therefore, leave to appeal may be refused.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and considered the ground as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 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 respondent Nos. 1 to 2 in the crime.
Further, learned counsel for the appellant 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.
Leave to appeal is refused.
Application for leave to appeal is rejected.
Accordingly, the appeal does not survive, and in view of above, the appeal is also dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for its compliance.
Order Date :- 13.02.2024
Arvind
Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against an acquittal order should be granted based on prosecution failure to establish guilt.
Whether the trial court's acquittal was based on probabilities or surreptitious views.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal given the presumption of innocence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersExplained¶29
(2016) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
Sambasiva V. State of KeralaExplained¶30
Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of U.P.
Sri Pal Patel And Another
Shamim Ahmed
Arvind Kumaria Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
