High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106788-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 210 of 2023 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Nanak S/O Chetram And 04 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri G.N. Kanojiya, learned A.G.A. for the State- appellant and perused the material placed on record. 2. The instant government appeal has been preferred by the State-appellant against the judgement and order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.4, District Amroha in S.T. No.646 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.511 of 2020, under Section 60 of Excise Act and Sections 272 and 273 IPC, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha, whereby trial court has acquitted the accused, namely, Nanak, Imran, Shubhas, Nanhe and Mithun for the said charges. 3. Learned counsel for the State-appellant submits that prosecution has proved its case by positive evidence of witnesses. The trial Court has misappreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused-respondents ignoring the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts by the evidence recorded during trial. The trial Court has ignored scientific evidence produced by the prosecution. 4. 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 Courts 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. 5. 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 appellate 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 appellate Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate 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." 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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." 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. From the perusal of the lower court record as well as trial Court's findings, it is evident that Sub-Inspector, Jashveer Singh accompanied by other police officials, who were posted at Police Station Haza, conducted a raid at Jangal, village, Chakanwala on certain information in the intervening night of 05.09.2020 and found some persons, who were engaged in manufacturing country made liquor in the sugarcane field of Yograj. They were manufacturing the liquor by pouring urea and nausadar and collecting the liquor in jerrycan. Two persons, by taking advantage of darkness, fled away from the place of incident and three accused persons were arrested from the spot, who disclosed their names as Nanak, Imran and Shubhas. They also disclosed the name of absconded persons as Nanhe and Mithun. The 45 liter adulterated country made liquor, 5 kg Urea, 500 gm Nausadar and some utensils used in manufacturing of illicit liquor were recovered from the place of incident. From the personal search of arrested accused persons, Rs.1,77,670/- were also recovered. Thereafter, FIR was lodged against five named accused persons vide Case Crime No.511 of 2020, under Sections 60 of Excise Act and Sections 272 and 273 IPC on the basis of recovery memo prepared by S.I., Jashveer Singh. P.W.6- Kripal Singh investigated the case and sent the sample of manufactured liquor and other articles for chemical examination at FSL, Muradabad. He also submitted charge-sheet against the named accused persons. 12. The prosecution examined, P.W.1, (SI), Jashvir Singh, P.W.2 (constable) Vikas, P.W.3, (constable) Yogesh Saini, P.W.4 (SI) Manoj Kumar, P.W.-5 (SI), Abhilekh Singh (second investigating officer) and P.W.6 (S.I.) Kripal Singh (first investigating officer), in support of its case against the accused persons. The statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after conclusion of prosecution evidence. The accused persons had not tendered any evidence in their defence. 13. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, observed that no public witnesses have been enjoined in the alleged arrest and recovery; which reflects lack of transparency in effecting search, seizure, arrest and date, time of occurrence of the incident. The trial Court has also observed that all the witnesses are police personnel, therefore, as a matter of caution, their evidence should be carefully analyzed. There is inconsistency in evidence of witnesses of search and seizure regarding their departure from police station and arrival at the place of incident. P.W.-4, who is an important witness, failed to reply many factual questions raised in cross-examination. In the FSL report, the intensity of alcohol sample was found 18.08 % and a result of examination of urea and nausadar was found positive, but from this report it cannot be comprehended the alcohol seized from the place of incident was spurious or dangerous to health, therefore, in absence of positive evidence, in support of charge under Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. these charges are not attracted in the present case. No person has been examined in support of charge that his health deteriorated on consuming said liquor. There is no evidence that said liquor was being sold or offered for sale at the time of seizure or it was kept for sell. The quantity of urea and nausadar is also small. The prosecution failed to prove that the liquor allegedly recovered from the place of incident was prepared for sale, therefore, trial Court has concluded that the charges are not proved against the accuse persons beyond reasonable doubts. 14. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we have examined the trial court's findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-State 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. 16. After considering the evidence on record, this Court does not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court's judgement is a well discussed and speaking, this Court finds no need to re-appreciate the evidence. 17. Leave to appeal is rejected. 18. The above noted government appeal is dismissed. 19. Let the record of the trial court be returned and this judgement to be notified to the trial court, within two week. Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Amit