State of U.P v. Indrajeet and another) arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant; learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 42, Shahjahanpur in Special Case No. 16 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Indrajeet and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 418 of 2018, Police Station Khuntar, District Shahjahanpur, whereby opposite party No. 2 has been acquitted of charges under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and opposite party No. 3 has been acquitted of charges under Sections 363, 366, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. The prosecution case is that on 08.10.2018 at 7:30 p.m., the daughter of the informant, aged 15 years, was enticed away by Indrajeet son of Kamta Prasad Jatav. In the above act, brother-in-law of Indrajeet, Gopal, was also involved. investigation charge sheet was submitted by After due investigating officer of the case and charges were framed against opposite party No. 2-Indrajeet under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act. Against respondent No. 3 Gopal, charges were framed under Sections 363, 366, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act. The accused-respondents denied the charges and sought trial. 2 NC413 No. 366 of 2025 The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1, victim; PW-2, informant and father of the victim; PW-3, mother of the victim; PW-4, Dr. Kiran Gupta; PW-5, Dr M.P. Gangwar; PW-6, retired Sub-Inspector, Rajkumar; PW-7, Brijgopal Mishra and PW-8, Sub-Inspector Rajnish. Statements of accused respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication in this case on the basis of incorrect charge sheet on account of village politics. Respondent No. 3 claimed that he is innocent and because of being brother-in-law (-9)K ) of co-accused Indrajeet, he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed patent legal error in acquitting opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 of all charges when the prosecution proved its case against them beyond reasonable doubt. 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 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. followed by 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 3 NC413 No. 366 of 2025 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." 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. 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. 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." The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the 4 NC413 No. 366 of 2025 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. 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. 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. After hearing rival contentions we find that the victim claims her Indrajeet, after being made abduction by respondent No. 2, unconscious by putting a handkerchief on her mouth. She claimed her forcible detention and commission of offence of rape for four days by Indrajeet. She has further alleged that Gopal was also present in the house of Ramu Bajpayee, where she was detained. The trial court has found that there is no reliable evidence against opposite party No.3-Gopal. He has been implicated in by way of improvement in this case. The Court has also found that the medical report of the victim has not supported the prosecution case at all. The court has also held that the accused can be held guilty on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, but the same should inspire confidence of the court and should be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality. The court below has considered the relevant case law in this regard. We further found that there is no eyewitness account of the victim going with opposite party No. 2-Indrajeet in tempo. We also found that from the evidence on record that where the incident allegedly took place, the fields were filled with water and the place was surrounded by numbers of houses of the villagers. In case the victim raised alarm for help, it is not possible that no one from the nearby houses came to help her. The allegation that the victim was handed over to her father and mother after four days of the incident by Ramu Bajpayee is also not proved from the record. The claim of the victim that she remained unconscious for four days does not inspires confidence of the Court. The victim was recovered by the police on 20.10.2018 from a public place and was never handed over to her parents by anyone. The victim claimed that she suffered injuries in the incident, but no such injury was found on her body by the doctor. The trial court has noted number of inconsistencies in the statement of the victim which have not been explained by the counsel for the appellant. 5 NC413 No. 366 of 2025 Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any error in the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The judgement and order of the trial court is affirmed. The criminal appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. October 8, 2025 Kashifa (Prashant Mishra-I,J.) (Siddharth,J.) KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant; learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 42, Shahjahanpur in Special Case No. 16 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Indrajeet and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 418 of 2018, Police Station Khuntar, District Shahjahanpur, whereby opposite party No. 2 has been acquitted of charges under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and opposite party No. 3 has been acquitted of charges under Sections 363, 366, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. The prosecution case is that on 08.10.2018 at 7:30 p.m., the daughter of the informant, aged 15 years, was enticed away by Indrajeet son of Kamta Prasad Jatav. In the above act, brother-in-law of Indrajeet, Gopal, was also involved. investigation charge sheet was submitted by After due investigating officer of the case and charges were framed against opposite party No. 2-Indrajeet under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act. Against respondent No. 3 Gopal, charges were framed under Sections 363, 366, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act. The accused-respondents denied the charges and sought trial. 2 NC413 No. 366 of 2025 The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1, victim; PW-2, informant and father of the victim; PW-3, mother of the victim; PW-4, Dr. Kiran Gupta; PW-5, Dr M.P. Gangwar; PW-6, retired Sub-Inspector, Rajkumar; PW-7, Brijgopal Mishra and PW-8, Sub-Inspector Rajnish. Statements of accused respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication in this case on the basis of incorrect charge sheet on account of village politics. Respondent No. 3 claimed that he is innocent and because of being brother-in-law (-9)K ) of co-accused Indrajeet, he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed patent legal error in acquitting opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 of all charges when the prosecution proved its case against them beyond reasonable doubt. 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 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. followed by 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 3 NC413 No. 366 of 2025 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." 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. 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. 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." The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the 4 NC413 No. 366 of 2025 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. 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. 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. After hearing rival contentions we find that the victim claims her Indrajeet, after being made abduction by respondent No. 2, unconscious by putting a handkerchief on her mouth. She claimed her forcible detention and commission of offence of rape for four days by Indrajeet. She has further alleged that Gopal was also present in the house of Ramu Bajpayee, where she was detained. The trial court has found that there is no reliable evidence against opposite party No.3-Gopal. He has been implicated in by way of improvement in this case. The Court has also found that the medical report of the victim has not supported the prosecution case at all. The court has also held that the accused can be held guilty on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, but the same should inspire confidence of the court and should be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality. The court below has considered the relevant case law in this regard. We further found that there is no eyewitness account of the victim going with opposite party No. 2-Indrajeet in tempo. We also found that from the evidence on record that where the incident allegedly took place, the fields were filled with water and the place was surrounded by numbers of houses of the villagers. In case the victim raised alarm for help, it is not possible that no one from the nearby houses came to help her. The allegation that the victim was handed over to her father and mother after four days of the incident by Ramu Bajpayee is also not proved from the record. The claim of the victim that she remained unconscious for four days does not inspires confidence of the Court. The victim was recovered by the police on 20.10.2018 from a public place and was never handed over to her parents by anyone. The victim claimed that she suffered injuries in the incident, but no such injury was found on her body by the doctor. The trial court has noted number of inconsistencies in the statement of the victim which have not been explained by the counsel for the appellant. 5 NC413 No. 366 of 2025 Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any error in the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The judgement and order of the trial court is affirmed. The criminal appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. October 8, 2025 Kashifa (Prashant Mishra-I,J.) (Siddharth,J.) KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad