The Allahabad High Court disposed of an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., dismissing it as the trial court's decision was based on a probable view and reinforced the presumption of innocence.
The appeal against acquittal was 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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12437
Court No. - 16
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 33 of 1997 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Rafiuddin And Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Counsel for Respondent :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Aditya Mishra,Mahendra Singh,Pradeep Kumar Singh,Pramod Kumar Singh,Rajendra Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Even the case is taken up in revised call, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite parties, though the names of Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, Aditya Mishra, Mahendra Singh, Pradeep Kumar Singh, Pramod Kumar Singh, Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Advocates, have been printed in the cause list on their behalf.
Heard the learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant and perused the material available on record.
The present appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.08.1996 passed by learned VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Gonda, in Session Trial No. 73 of 1991, State of U.P. Vs. Rafiuddin & 10 ors., arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 1988, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 149, 324/149, 307/149 I.P.C., Police Station Tulsipur, District Gonda, acquitting the opposite parties from the charges framed against them.
The prosecution case starts with a written report lodged by the complainant- Alauddin at Police Station Tulsipur, District Gonda, on 08.06.1988, stating therein that an enmity was going on between him and the appellants. Owing to this issue, on 08.06.1988 when one man of the complainant side was going to attend the call of nature, the appellants surrounded him on the way, challenged him and beaten him with lathi-danda and opened fire upon him with countrymade pistols.
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 30.08.1996.
Learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant 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.
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 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 opposite parties in the crime.
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.
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.
Accordingly, the present appeal against acquittal is dismissed .
No order as to costs.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for its compliance.
( Shamim Ahmed, J. )
Order Date :- 12.2.2024/A.Nigam
Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal absent perversity of fact and law.
Whether the court below's acquittal was based on erroneous views or material on record.
Whether the appeal against acquittal succeeded.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersRelied on¶15
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2016) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
Sambasiva V. State of KeralaRelied on¶17
Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of U.P.
Rafiuddin
Rafiuddin And Others
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
