Dismissed

State of Up v. Ram Charan and another

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2024GOVA/38/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, acting as an appellate court, examined a government appeal challenging an order of acquittal under Section 364 IPC. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the presumption of innocence, the bench assessed the evidence and the trial court's reasoning before deciding on the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal application rejected and government appeal dismissed; record returned to trial court.

State of Up vs Ram Charan and another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:198469-DB

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 38 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Ram Charan And Another 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 No. Nil of 2024

¶7

Heard Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the appellant and perused the record.

¶8

The above noted government appeal is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 09, District Saharanpur, vide order dated 10.11.2023 in Sessions Trial No. 710 of 2017 (State vs. Ram Charan and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2017, under Section 364 IPC, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Saharanpur.

¶9

The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant has given a written report at Police Station concerned stating therein that on 13.08.2017 at about 6:30 a.m the accusedrespondents had forcibly taken away the son of complainant, namely, Bholu from his house and thereafter he did not returned back to his house. On the basis of the aforesaid, first information report of the present case was registered and the investigating officer after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet.

¶10

Accused-respondent denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be tried.

¶11

The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined P.W.1, Smt. Sabra (complainant); P.W.-2, Smt. Sabina; P.W.-3, Furkan and P.W.-4, Rajiv Kumar Yadav.

¶12

Learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused-respondent are entitled for acquittal.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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:

¶16

"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."

¶17

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

¶18

the order of acquittal only when there is perversity.

¶19

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 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.

¶20

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

¶21

"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."

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

After perusal of the record, we find that the trial court has

¶26

found that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offence. The only evidence against them was found to be the clothes and slippers of the deceased. It does not appears probable that after the abducted boy was thrown in the river, his slippers and clothes were kept by the accused persons and they waited for their arrest by the police and provide the police a link for implicating them in this case.

¶27

The trial court has found that there was no motive of the crime nor the prosecution succeeded in providing its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶28

Leave to appeal application is rejected.

¶29

Order on Government Appeal No. 38 of 2024

¶30

Since the leave to appeal of appellant has been rejected, this appeal is also dismissed.

¶31

Let the record be returned to trial court within two weeks and this order be notified too.

¶32

Order Date :- 18.12.2024 Rohit

¶33

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

¶34

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

State of Up v. Ram Charan and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Up v. Ram Charan and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

state of up vs Shailendra Kumar and 3 others

State of U.P. vs Arif so Aidal Singh

State of U.P. vs Naseem and others

state of up vs Jite @ Jitendra and 4 others

Smt Poonam vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

state of up vs Surendra @ Kukka and 3 others