High Court · 2025

1. Heard Ms. Manju Thakur, learned counsel for the State- appellant and perused the material placed on record.

2. The above noted leave to appeal application has been filed for grant of leave to challenge the judgement and order of acquittal dated 09.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hamirpur in S.T. No.154 of 2018 (State Vs. Rohit Pathak & Others) whereby the respondents have been acquitted for charges under Sections 307/34 IPC in Case Crime No.168 of 2017, Police Station Jalalpur, District Hamirpur.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 09.09.2017 complainant S.I. Vinod Kumar along with constable Ravindra Arya and Constable Suresh Kumar Yadav in government jeep with driver Munni Lal Singh were on checking duty of vehicles near Chhibauli and they had seen a four wheeler vehicle coming towards them. When the police party tried to stop the car, the car driver with intention to kill forwarded the car dangerously towards them but the police party escaped narrowly. Thereafter, the police party chased the car and the wheel of the said car stuck in Kachchi Road. The police party after surrounding the said car i.e. Swift Dezire and arrested the above accused-respondents. From the said car 30 bags of Gutka of Badshah Brand (1 bag contained 55 packets) were recovered and the aforesaid vehicle was seized u/s 184 & 207 of Motor Vehicles Act. On the basis of aforesaid information, the first information report was lodged and after completing all formalities and collecting sufficient material evidences the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the accused-respondents in the Court below.

4. The accused-respondents denied the prosecution tried. claimed allegations

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1 S.I. Satish Kumar Shukla, PW-2 S.I. Vinod Kumar (complainant) & PW-3 Constable Ravindra Arya.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused-respondents are entitled for acquittal.

7. 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.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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."

12. 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.

13. 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.

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. From the perusal of the record as well as trial Court's findings, it is evident that offence as alleged was never proved by the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. Further no injury was suffered by anyone in the police party. No evidence was produced that any vehicle got broken in the alleged incident. It was also not proved that the police personnel in order to defend themselves used force against respondents. The trial Court has found that even the incident in dispute has not been proved by the prosecution. There was no independent witness of the incident produced.

16. We do not find 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.

17. 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 merited one, this Court need not re-appreciate the evidence.

18. The above noted criminal 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. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Amit AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Ms. Manju Thakur, learned counsel for the State- appellant and perused the material placed on record.

2. The above noted leave to appeal application has been filed for grant of leave to challenge the judgement and order of acquittal dated 09.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hamirpur in S.T. No.154 of 2018 (State Vs. Rohit Pathak & Others) whereby the respondents have been acquitted for charges under Sections 307/34 IPC in Case Crime No.168 of 2017, Police Station Jalalpur, District Hamirpur.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 09.09.2017 complainant S.I. Vinod Kumar along with constable Ravindra Arya and Constable Suresh Kumar Yadav in government jeep with driver Munni Lal Singh were on checking duty of vehicles near Chhibauli and they had seen a four wheeler vehicle coming towards them. When the police party tried to stop the car, the car driver with intention to kill forwarded the car dangerously towards them but the police party escaped narrowly. Thereafter, the police party chased the car and the wheel of the said car stuck in Kachchi Road. The police party after surrounding the said car i.e. Swift Dezire and arrested the above accused-respondents. From the said car 30 bags of Gutka of Badshah Brand (1 bag contained 55 packets) were recovered and the aforesaid vehicle was seized u/s 184 & 207 of Motor Vehicles Act. On the basis of aforesaid information, the first information report was lodged and after completing all formalities and collecting sufficient material evidences the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the accused-respondents in the Court below.

4. The accused-respondents denied the prosecution tried. claimed allegations

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1 S.I. Satish Kumar Shukla, PW-2 S.I. Vinod Kumar (complainant) & PW-3 Constable Ravindra Arya.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused-respondents are entitled for acquittal.

7. 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.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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."

12. 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.

13. 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.

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. From the perusal of the record as well as trial Court's findings, it is evident that offence as alleged was never proved by the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. Further no injury was suffered by anyone in the police party. No evidence was produced that any vehicle got broken in the alleged incident. It was also not proved that the police personnel in order to defend themselves used force against respondents. The trial Court has found that even the incident in dispute has not been proved by the prosecution. There was no independent witness of the incident produced.

16. We do not find 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.

17. 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 merited one, this Court need not re-appreciate the evidence.

18. The above noted criminal 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. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Amit AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad