state of up vs Rajeev s/o Ramesh

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1546-DB

¶2

Court No. - 47

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1055 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Rajeev S/O Ramesh Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J .

¶6

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

¶7

Heard Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned AGA for the Stateappellant and perused the material on record.

¶8

The above noted leave to appeal application has been filed praying for grant of leave to the appellant to prefer appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 13.8.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., District Budaun, in Sessions Case No.905 of 2021 (State Vs. Rajeev).

¶9

By the aforesaid judgement and order, the accused-respondent has been acquitted of all charges under Sections 302, 452 IPC, which was registered as Case Crime No.156 of 2021 at Police Station Kadar Chowk, District Budaun.

¶10

The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant has given a written report at Police Station concerned stating therein that the younger brother of complainant, namely, Virendra, was doing work with accused- respondent at Metha Plant and in the last week some altercation took place between the complainant and accusedrespondent due to which the accused- respondent developed enmity with the complainant and on 09.06.2021 at about 12 p.m. aforesaid Rajeev and Virendra after doing their work returned back and they consuming liquor. Accused-respondent came with the brother of complainant at his house and thereafter the complainant and his daughter, namely, Kajal saw that the accused-respondent caught hold of neck of the brother of complainant on a cot and committed his murder by pressing neck and flee away from the spot. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, first information report was lodged and present case was registered, in which the investigating officer after due investigation has submitted charge- sheet.

¶11

Trial court framed charges against the respondent which he denied and sought trial.

¶12

The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1, Nandram (complainant); PW-2, Km. Kajal; PW-3, Constable, Gurmend; PW-4, Sub-Inspector, Rajesh Kumar; PW-5, Dr. Prashant

¶13

Gangwar; PW-6, Rajeev Kumar Sharma (Inspector) and PW7 Rishipal (Inspector).

¶14

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

¶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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

"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."

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. We find that prosecution failed to prove the allegations against the respondent beyond doubt before the trial court. The prosecution has set up PW-1 and PW-2 as the eye-witnesses of the case. The above witnesses are the elder brother and niece of the deceased. They have stated that the deceased and the respondent

¶27

used to work together and dispute took place between them 6-7 days ago since the respondent used to sell country-made liquor and the deceased reported the same to the police. The trial court has found that after the murder of the deceased, another elder brother of the deceased, Jai Singh, was caught by the police, but later he was released. It has also been found by the trial court that village Pradhan, Harpal, had enmity with the respondent and has suspected that this may have caused implication of the respondent in this case. It has been found by the trial court that the deceased had taken an insurance policy of Rs.5 lacs and the benefit of the same was to accrue his family members PW-1 and PW-2, since he was unmarried. PW-2 stated that the respondent was throttling the deceased while he was sleeping in the cot by his hands, but the cause of the death of the deceased was found by the doctor, PW-5, as strangulation and not throttling. No sign of fingers of hand of any person on the neck of the deceased was found.

¶28

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 evidence.

¶29