Suresh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 160 of 2025

Suresh Chandra		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 78

¶3

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶4

Order on Criminal Misc. (Special Leave to Appeal) Application

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant has filed this application to grant leave to the applicant/appellant for filing Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 03.06.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Agra in Complaint Case No. 6908095 of 2014, Suresh Chandra Versus Mitthan Lal and Others, under Sections 147, 323/149, 504, 506, 354 IPC, Police Station-Achhnera, District-Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Trial Court has not considered the statement of the victim and other material available on record. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution version and there is sufficient material to proceed against the respondents accused.

¶8

From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the respondents accused are real brothers of the appellant. There existed a family differences/dispute due to share in the ancestral property. No injury was caused to the victim neither there was any injury report to substantiate the matter. The victim has already died during trial. Both the material witnesses

¶9

NA419 No. 160 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

had adduced partial evidence under Section 246 Cr.P.C. The defence witness examined had also denied having taken place any such incident.

¶12

It would be appropriate to take note of laws on the appeal against acquittal:-

¶13

(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 High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal and in paragraph 26 it has been held that:

¶14

"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."

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) Similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471.

¶18

(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 :-

¶19

"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

¶20

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

¶21

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice

¶22

NA419 No. 160 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

and is in itself a ground of challenge;

¶25

(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;

¶26

(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;

¶27

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

¶28

(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."

¶29

Matter requires no interference. The Special Leave to Appeal is rejected.

¶30

The instant appeal is, accordingly dismissed.

¶31

October 6, 2025 Shivani

¶32

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suresh Chandra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases