Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Ram Kumar and 3 Orss.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024GOVA/1586/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against acquittal of offences under IPC Sections 323, 324, 504, and 506, the High Court affirmed the trial court's decision. The Court found the prosecution failed to prove direct evidence of involvement, and the acquittal was not based on perversity or erroneous view of law.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against acquittal dismissed; no interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

State of U.P. Vs Ram Kumar and 3 Orss. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53501

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1586 of 2003

¶4

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Ram Kumar And 3 Orss. Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- D.R. Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

The case is taken up in revised call. no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. Sri Putti Lal, Advocate has put in appearance for the opp. party No. 4 by filing his vakalatnama , which is taken on record..

¶7

Heard Sri D.R. Yadav, the learned A.G.A. for the Stateappellant 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 08.07.2003 passed by learned Vth A.C.J. (J.D.)/J.M., Sitapur, in Case No. 491 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 145 of 1993, Police Station Maanpur, District Sitapur, acquitting the opposite parties from the charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 504, 506, I.P.C.

¶9

Prosecution against the opp. parties starts with an F.I.R. lodged at P.S. Maanpur, District Sitapur, on the the basis of an oral information given by the informant Chandrika on 09.08.1993, inter alia , stating that on the said date while he alongwith other co-villages was returning to his home after doing labour work, the opp. Party Ram Kumar asked a Bidi from him. He immediately gave the same. He asked for another Bidi. Then the informant refused. Upon this Ram Kumar abused him and pressed his neck. On his noise his family members rushed to the spot. Simultaneously, the family members of the Ram Kumar also rushed to the spot. The opp. parties assaulted the informant side with lathi-danda, causing multiple injuries to them.

¶10

The trial court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, passed the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.07.2003.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant submits that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record. He further submits that prosecution has successfully proved the offence

¶12

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 trial court.

¶14

In the present case from the statements given by the witnesses produced by the prosecution, I find 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

¶19

therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal."

¶20

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 trial court is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative."

¶21

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 trial court was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits.

¶22

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.

¶23

Keeping in view the aforesaid weakness of the prosecution case, as noted by the trial court, I am of the view that the view taken by the trial court was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the trial court 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.

¶24

Accordingly, the present appeal against acquittal is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶25

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

¶26

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶27

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 A.Nigam

¶28

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

State of U.P. v. Ram Kumar and 3 Orss.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Ram Kumar and 3 Orss.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Shankar and Another Vs the State of U.P.

Mishri Lal and Others Vs the State of U.P.

Smt. Rajrani and Another Vs the State of U.P.

Shah Alam Vs the State of U.P.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P.

Ram Murat and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.