Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Naseem and others

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024GOVA/25/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a Government Appeal and a leave to appeal application against an order of acquittal in a criminal case involving theft and arms charges. The court reviewed precedents on appeal against acquittal, emphasizing the burden on the prosecution and the standard of perversity for interference. Finding no perversity in the trial court's findings regarding the imprecise time of inc

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal application rejected; Government Appeal dismissed.

State of U.P. vs Naseem and others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177489-DB

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 25 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Naseem And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand

¶5

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

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application

¶7

Heard Sri Gyan Narayan Kanaujia, learned A.G.A for the State.

¶8

This government appeal is directed against impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.10.2023, passed in Session Case No. 906 of 2020 (State vs. Naseem and others) connected with Session Case No. 907 of 2020 (State vs. Naseem), Session Case No. 908 of 2020 (State vs. Waseem) and Session Case No. 915 of 2020 (State vs. Israr), in Case Crime No. 103 of 2020, under Sections 398, 401 and 307 IPC, Case Crime No. 104 of 2020, under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Case Crime No. 106 of 2020, under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and Case Crime No. 105 of 2020, under Section 4/25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station- Islam Nagar, District- Budaun.

¶9

The prosecution case is that P.W.-1, Sub-Inspector, Dhavendra Singh, received information that the respondents are planning to commit the offence of theft of cattle of the villagers while they were sleeping in the night. Thereafter, they caught hold of the respondents and recovered incriminating arms from them. The prosecution produced witnesses of fact in support of its case who were only police men.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution proved its case beyond doubt before the trial court but the trial court has illegally acquitted respondents and hence this government appeal.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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:

¶15

"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."

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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 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.

¶19

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

¶20

"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."

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

This court finds that trial court has recorded finding of fact that in the memo of recovery AM/PM both have been mentioned and therefore, the time of incident does not appears to be proved. When the police party left for arrest of the respondents is not proved from the memo of recovery. No information about the police party leaving for the place of incident was given to the higher authorities is mentioned in the memo of recovery. Four police men went on two motorcycles and arrested three

¶25

accused and brought them to the police station. How they were brought to police station has also not been mentioned. The arrest of respondents and lodging of case both have been made at 03:10 hours which is not possible. Statements of witnesses, except of informant, has been recorded on the same day. The trial court has found that the recovery of arms alleged against the respondents has also not found to be credible.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any legal infirmity or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial court. We are not inclined to grant leave to the state or preferring this appeal.

¶27

Accordingly, the leave to appeal application filed by appellant is rejected.

¶28

Order on Government Appeal

¶29

In view of the rejection of leave to appeal application, the government appeal is also dismissed.

¶30

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Rohit

¶31

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) (Siddharth, J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

State of U.P. v. Naseem and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Naseem and others

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 Arif so Aidal Singh

state of up vs Shailendra Kumar and 3 others