High Court rejected a government application for leave to appeal and dismissed the anschließing criminal appeal by the State against an acquittal. The Court held the trial court's order was sustainable as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Leave to appeal application rejected; Government Appeal dismissed; Acquittal upheld.
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:182522-DB
Court No. - 48
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 307 of 2024
Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Raju Gupta And Another Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand
Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application
treatment was going on. Accused persons were giving threats to kill her entire family members. On the basis of which first information report present case was registered against accused respondents and another accused, Jeetu Gupta, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and investigating officer after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet against accused respondents under the aforesaid sections. Jeetu Gupta was declared juvenile and his trial was separated.
"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."
"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."
Order on Government Appeal No. 307 of 2024
Since leave to appeal application is rejected, therefore, the above noted government appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024 Rohit
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) (Siddharth, J.)
Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is liable to interfere with the judgment of acquittal of the trial court on an appeal filed by the State.
Whether the findings of the trial court holding that prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt were palpably wrong or manifestly erroneous.
Whether presumption of innocence protects the accused against reversal of acquittal where two views are possible on evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of M.P. Vs. Sharad GoswamiReferred¶16
State of M.P. Vs. Sharad Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera RamReferred¶16
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of MaharastraReferred¶16
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of GujaratExplained¶17
Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 · Who else cites this
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶19
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. IbrahimReferred¶20
Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 · Who else cites this
Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P.Referred¶21
Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 · Who else cites this
State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & OrsReferred¶22
State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 · Who else cites this
Sujit Biswas v. State of AssamReferred¶24
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 · Who else cites this
State of U.P.
Raju Gupta
Siddharth
Subhash Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
