Complainant's appeal against acquittal of accused in a complaint case alleging abduction and assault during matrimonial disputes. The High Court found major contradictions, unreliable witnesses and no proof of incident, holding the trial court's plausible view of acquittal warranted no interference.
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. - 2025:AHC:4454
Court No.83
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 12 of 2025
Appellant :- Smt. Meenakshi Sahu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Gyanendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
The complainant lodged a complaint alleging that on 22.01.2016 when she and her father went to pursue the case no. 254/2015 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda, at around 1:20 pm whey they came out of the court premises, seeking date in the matter, her husband Dheerendra Sahu, father-in-law Shiv Prasad Sahu, Baghwan Das Sahu intercepted them under an over-bridge near the Kothi of Vivek Singh, hurled abuses and forcefully dragged her in their four wheeler. When she and her father resisted, the passers by, namely Shan, son of Hakim Khan and Chandrabhan, son of Heera Lal and several others intervened. The accused threatened them to to withdraw the cases otherwise they would be put in peril. The complainant was assaulted with kicks and fists on her stomach and felt extreme pain. They threatened to transfer all the cases to Lucknow and rushed away. The complainant and her father
2
immediately went to Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, Banda but no FIR was lodged. Hence, the present complaint.
3
Meenakshi Sahu was dragged forcefully to sit inside the car and was kicked on her stomach and was threatened that she should withdraw all the cases and that her father would be killed. The said witness in his cross-examination admitted that he knew the first informant since past 15 years and had worked in her house as an electrician.
4
hospital for any medical aid. All these instances taken together makes the incident doubtful. The unnatural conduct of the victim which a prudent man ought to have done has not been found. It also indicates that the complainant and the first informant were not present at the spot. The complainant in her complaint stated that the incident took place at 1:20 pm on the other hand she had disclosed that at 1:20 pm she had sought the time from the Family Court and then left the premises then how can the two events take place simultaneously. The complainant and her father in their testimony had stated P.W.3 as a passer by and subsequently in their cross-examination they disclosed that they knew P.W.-3 Shan Khan for the past ten years. Even Mohd. Shan Khan in his examination-in-chief admitted that he knew the first informant since past 15 years and had done the electricity repairing work in their house. Therefore, P.W.-3 was not a passer by or an independent witness but rather he was known to the complainant. The complainant has suppressed the material fact which also goes to doubt the prosecution case. The complainant has raised an objection to the plea of alibi raised by the respondents accused on the ground that the respondents accused had taken the plea of alibi to save themselves that at the time of the incident as they were at some other place. Here in the instant matter from the facts and circumstances, it can be safely concluded that no such incident took place as alleged and in order to harass the respondents accused, a false case has been registered. When the incident has not been proved so there is no question to determine the plea of alibi raised by the respondents accused.
(i) In the case of Bannareddy and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 5 SCC 790, in paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the power and jurisdiction of the
5
High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal and in paragraph 26 it has been held that:
"The High Court should not have re-appreciated the evidence in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial Court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities."
(ii) In Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka, 2021 (6) SCC 213 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to explain the limitations of exercise of power of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court.
(iii) In a recent judgement of this Court in Virendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (3) ADJ 354 DB , the law on the issue involved has been considered.
(iv) Similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471.
(v) Since, it is a Government Appeal against the acquittal, it will be relevant to note the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the appreciation of evidence in the appeal against the acquittal. Recently, in the case of Mallapa and others Vs. State of Karnataka , the Apex Court has held as under :-
6
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
7
reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge is quite sound and sustainable which do not warrant any interference.
Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Monika
Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC in a complainant's appeal against acquittal.
Whether the prosecution evidence proved the alleged abduction and assault beyond reasonable doubt despite contradictions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bannareddy and others vs. State of Karnataka and othersRelied on
(2018) 5 SCC 790 · Who else cites this
Jayamma vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on
2021 (6) SCC 213 · Who else cites this
Virendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred
2022 (3) ADJ 354 DB
Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and anotherRelied on
(2022) 3 SCC 471 · Who else cites this
8 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Meenakshi Sahu
State of U.P.
Dheerendra Sahu
Shiv Prasad Sahu
Nand Prabha Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
