Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Arif so Aidal Singh

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024GOVA/19/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a government appeal against an order of acquittal. The court held that the presumption of innocence reinforces acquittals and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to cross-examination defects and the lack of production of the child witness. Leave to appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal application rejected; Government Appeal dismissed.

State of U.P. vs Arif so Aidal Singh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177175-DB

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 19 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Arif So Aidal Singh Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Order On leave to appeal application No..../2024.

¶7

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned AGA-I for State.

¶8

This government appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the accused-respondent dated 21.10.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Agra, in Sessions Trial No. 2471 of 2020 (State Vs. Arif).

¶9

The prosecution case is that the niece of the informant, P.W.-1, aged about three years was playing outside the house. The respondent kidnapped her with intention to cause her murder. Search of the child was made and then the informant got the information that one person has been caught by people who was going with an abducted child near Panchkai Kheda. The informant and others went there and identified the child. They got hold of the respondent and brought him to the police station and lodged the F.I.R.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has mislead the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.

¶11

The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment acquitting an accused on the principle that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by such a judgment. The above principle has been consistently followed by the Constitutional Court while deciding appeals against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution or appeals filed under Section 378 and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. in State of M.P. Vs. Sharad Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao

¶12

Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.

¶13

The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by reappraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below:

¶14

"Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."

¶15

The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from 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.

¶16

The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other

¶17

words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.

¶18

The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under:

¶19

"25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."

¶20

The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors , (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

¶21

The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶22

In the background of the law discussed herein above, we will examine the trial court's findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the prosecution proved its case beyond doubt before the trial court, but it has illegally acquitted the respondent of all charges. He further stated that trial court has committed patent legal error in acquitting the respondent when the prosecution proved its case beyond before the trial court. The informant was charge-sheeted under section 364 IPC.

¶24

We find that before the trial court, P.W.-1, informant, proved the prosecution case as alleged in the F.I.R. P.W.-2, also proved the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. P.W-3, mousi , of the minor child

¶25

in her cross-examination did not proved the prosecution case as alleged. She stated that she implicated the respondent on the basis of the name told by the people present on the spot. She also stated in her cross-examination that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 had accompanied her to the place of recovery, but she met the abducted child on the police chowki . She had not seen the abducted child with the respondent. We further find that other persons who informed the prosecution witnesses about the recovery of child were not named nor any such person was examined before the trial court. Even, the abducted child was not produced as child witness before the court and, therefore, the finding of the trial court that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt appears to be justified.

¶26

No infirmity in the findings of the trial court have been pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant.

¶27

Accordingly, the leave to appeal application is rejected.

¶28

Order on Government Appeal.

¶29

Since leave to appeal application is rejected, therefore, the above noted Government Appeal is, hereby, dismissed .

¶30

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Abhishek

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

State of U.P. v. Arif so Aidal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Arif so Aidal Singh

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

state of up vs Surendra @ Kukka and 3 others

state of up vs Antram and 3 others

Manju Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

state of up vs Sachin and another

State of U.P. vs Naseem and others

state of up vs Shailendra Kumar and 3 others