Dismissed

state of up v. Doctor alias Mubarak Hussain and 10 others

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024GOVA/870/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected the State's leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused in a dacoity and cheating case. The Court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and were based on circumstances; the presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal prevented interference as no infirmity was shown.

What the court decided

AI extract

state of up vs Doctor alias Mubarak Hussain and 10 others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190190-DB

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 870 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Doctor Alias Mubarak Hussain And 10 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J .

¶7

Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. of 2024

¶8

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned AGA-Ist for the State-appellant and perused the material on record.

¶9

The above noted leave to appeal application has been filed praying for grant of leave to the appellant against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 11.3.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, District Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No.193 of 2007 (State Vs. Doctor @ Mubarak Husain and others).

¶10

By the aforesaid judgement and order, the accused-respondents have been acquitted of all charges under Sections 395, 397, 328/34, 328/149, 412 and 120-B IPC, which was registered as Case Crime No.12 of 2005 at Police Station Thariyon, District Fatehpur.

¶11

The prosecution story in brief that complainant of the case, namely, Atar Singh, was Manager in Kanpur Delhi Goods Carrier Ltd. T.P. Nagar Kanpur. From the Office of complainant situated at Surat Truck bearing Registration No.GJ-19-T-2718 started on 25.01.2005 after loading 121 bundles of Saree, etc.. Driver of the said Truck was Rajesh Kumar, son of Bharat Prasad, resident of Village Ghurwara, Police Station Damau, District Raibareilly. Upon the said Truck conductor was Deepak, son of Radhey Shyam of the same village. The aforesaid truck did not reached Banaras upto 29.01.2005 regarding which the complainant received information through officer of Suraj (Gujrat) that neither the truck nor driver reached with goods. Thereafter search was made and the truck was found in Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi and the loaded goods were not there. The complainant had apprehension that the truck driver along with his associates disappeared with the goods loaded on the truck. The incident had taken place between Police Station Thariyon to Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the first information report of present case was lodged, and after lodging of the first information report of present case, the Investigating Officer started investigation and after making detailed investigation, completed all formalities and collecting credible evidences had submitted charge sheet against the accused persons in the court below to face its trial.

¶12

The accused-respondents denied the charges and sought trial.

¶13

The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1 complainant of the case, Atar Singh; PW-2, Mahendra Pratap Singh; PW-3, Rinku; PW-4, Sub-Inspector Abhimannu Yadav; PW-5, Ram Swaroop, retired Sub-Inspector; PW-6 Nand Kishor Pandey, retired S.O. and PW-7 driver Rajesh Kumar.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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 re-appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below:

¶17

"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."

¶18

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.

¶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

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. We find that it is a case of circumstantial evidence.

¶26

The accused-respondents were identified after 2-3 months and implicated in this case. The prosecution witnesses have not identified them. PW-2 has denied that recovery memo of looted goods was made before him and any recovery was made before him. The Inspector has called him to the police station, where his signatures were taken on the memo of recovery. Hence the trial court has recorded finding that the recovery was shown from the accused persons in a manner, which does not inspires confidence of the court and has granted benefit of doubt to all the accused. The trial court has considered the legal aspects of the case thoroughly and has found that the accused respondents deserve to be given benefits of doubt and has acquitted them.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court's judgement is a well merited one, this Court need not re-appreciate the evidences.

¶28