State v. Bahadur
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196063-DB Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 343 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Smt. Meena Thareja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Order on Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 343 of 2024 1. Heard Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondents and perused the material the record. 2. The above noted criminal appeal under Section 373 Cr.P.C is filed against the judgement and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by Special Judge (Gangster Act) / A.D.J., Court No. 5, Moradabad in Session Trial (Old) No. 1078 of 2022 (State vs. Ram Chandra Saini and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1080 of 2021, under Sections - 364/34 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Moradabad and Session Trial No. 1774 of 2023, "State vs. Bablu Saini" in Case Crime No. 30 of 2022, under Section- 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Moradabad and Session Trial No. 1116 of 2022, "State vs. Bahadur" in Case Crime No. 31 of 2022, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Moradabad. 3. The incident is said to have taken place on 30.12.2021 at 07:00 a.m for which first information report has been registered on 30.12.2021 at 13:19. 4. As per prosecution version it is stated by the informant that on 30.12.2021 her husband having mobile no. 9760108401, went to his Adhat at Mandi Samiti on Scooty No. U.P.21 BU 6372, along with his bag. After some time she made a phone call on the mobile phone of her husband which was found to be switched off. She launched search of her husband and came to know that near PMS school and Anurag Nursing Home her husband was kidnapped by 3-4 persons in white colour Scorpio car. His Scooty and bag were found at the place of incident. It is further alleged in the first information report that the enmity of her husband is going on with Ram Chandra, Rajendra Saini, Jaipal Singh, who have given threat to him to vacate shop of Adhat. 5. During the course of trial, the informant and other witnesses have been examined as P.W.-1, Smt. Meena Thareja; P.W.-2, Sandeep Thareja; the victim of the case, P.W.-3, Sanu Dua, witness of Suprdiginama; P.W.-5, Ravindra Pratap; P.W.-6, Rajendra Kumar; P.W.-7, Awadh Bihari; P.W.-8, Doctor, Radhey Shyam Gangwar and Sub-Inspector, Firoj Khan, P.W.-9 who supported the prosecution case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the medical evidence and first information report as well as statement of the witness are fully corroborated and supported the prosecution version but the learned trial court has totally overlooked entire evidence and acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 on the ground of contradictions in statements and suspicion. 7. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the witness as they have fully supported the prosecution version and established the case beyond all reasonable doubt and proved the guilt of the accused/ opposite party nos. 2 to 5 but the trial court erred in acquitting the accused / respondent nos. 2 to 5 which is bad in the eyes of law. 8. Trial court has considered the material evidence and thereafter he has given categorical finding about the involvement and guilt of the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 even then the trial court has acquitted them only on the baseless ground. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents. 10. 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. 11. 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: "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." 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under: "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." 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the record of the trial court, we find that the abduction of P.W.-2 was done in a public place and he was taken to Agra. Number of C.C.T.V cameras were installed on these places but no such evidence was produced by the prosecution. There was dispute between P.W.-2 and respondent no. 2 regarding business transactions and money which was admitted by P.W.-2. P.W.-2 has stated that he was abducted with intention to cause his murder but there is no such injury on the body of deceased which may indicate that any attempt was made to cause his murder. It has been alleged that P.W.-2 was administered some intoxicating substance and liquor but no such medical report was produced before the trial court. When he was abducted from the busy public place, he did not made any alarm or cried for help. No weapon in possession of respondents was found nor proved before the trial court which may indicate that the accused-respondents had intention and preparation of committing the murder of P.W.-2. Trial court has rightly recorded the finding that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved his guilty. The suspicion cannot take place of proof. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. 19. Criminal Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. 20. Let the record of trial court be returned and this judgment be notified too. Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Rohit (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) (Siddharth, J.)