State of U.P v. Santoshi Nandan Shukla and Others), arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard Sri Balram Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. Defective No.387/2008 and on behalf of the revisionist in Criminal Revision No.271/2007. 2 A378D No. 387 of 2008

3. On due consideration of the affidavits filed in support of the application for condonation of delay as well as the reports submitted by the office, the grounds are sufficient to condone the delay occurred in filing the Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State as well as the Criminal Revision by the informant.

4. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and the delay occurred in filing the Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State as well as the Criminal Revision by the informant is hereby condoned. Order on Memo of Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. and Criminal Revision

5. Since the judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.394 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs. Santoshi Nandan Shukla and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.80/2000, under Sections 306/498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Purwa, District Unnao has been challenged in the appeal, for which the aforesaid Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State and Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant, therefore, both are clubbed together and are being decided by a common order.

6. Learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal has been passed by the learned trial court without considering the evidence and material on record, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside. Thus, he submits that the leave to appeal may be granted and the appeal may be heard and decided on merit.

7. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by the complainant: Pratap Shanker Tripathi alleging therein that his sister was married about 12 years ago with Santoshi Nandan Shukla S/o Late Parmanandan Shukla R/o Village Pasakheda as per Hindu rites and rituals, wherein dowry was given as per capacity. After the marriage, Santoshi Nandan Shukla as well as his family members started harassing the sister of the complainant for demand of additional dowry, in regard to which a complaint was lodged at Police Station Purwa, District Unnao, 3 A378D No. 387 of 2008 wherein the brother-in-law of the complainant had compromised the matter and assured that they will not harass the sister of the complainant. However, after some days they again started harassing sister of the complainant, which was informed to the complainant by his sister herself and it was also informed that they beat her for fulfilling demand of Rs.20,000/- and also threatened her that in case demand is not fulfilled, they will burn her. When the complainant asked about this to his brother- in-law, he also told that in case Rs.20,000/- is not given to him, then his sister would be burnt. This was said by him before Ajai Narain Bajpai and Anil Kumar, who are the nephews of Santoshi Nandan Shukla. Thereafter, the complainant came back but on 29.03.2000 at about 09:00 AM, the accused persons had burnt the sister of complainant and cremated her body without informing the complainant. When the complainant came to know about the incident through a villager on

30.03.2000, he lodged the FIR at Police Station Purwa, District Unnao on

31.03.2000.

8. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed, on which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and the matter was committed to the court of session, being session trial. The charge against the accused Santoshi Nandan Shukla was framed under Section 306 I.P.C., who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed for trial.

9. The accused persons Ajai Narayan and Anil Kumar were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and charges under Section 306 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. were framed. Thereafter on 05.03.2004, charges under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were also framed against the accused persons, namely, Santoshi Nandan Shukla, Ajai Narayan and Anil Kumar.

10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the complainant Pratap Shanker Tripathi as P.W.-1, Raj Kishore as P.W.-2, Shiv Prakash as P.W.-3, Rameshwar Tiwari as P.W.-4, Constable Amar Pal Singh as P.W.-5, Vinod Kumar Dwivedi as P.W.-6 and Hasan Ahmad, Naib Tehsildar.

11. The prosecution also placed on record and proved the documentary 4 A378D No. 387 of 2008 evidence, i.e. the Written Tehrir as Ex. Ka-1, Applications as Ex. Ka-2, P.M. Report as Ex. Ka-3 and Ex. Ka-4, Chik FIR as Ex. Ka-5, G.D. as Ex. Ka-6, Panchayatnama as Ex. Ka-7, Letter R.I. as Ex. Ka-8, Letter C.M.O. as Ex. Ka-9, Photo Lash as Ex. Ka-10 and Challan Lash as Ex. Ka-11. Authenticity of all these documents were accepted by the accused persons under Section 294 Cr.P.C.

12. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they stated that false FIR has been lodged and they have been roped illegally. The accused Santoshi Nandan Shukla also stated that his wife was boiling milk when her saree caught fire and the neighborours took her to hospital and as soon as he got the information, he also reached the hospital. His wife died during treatment and thereafter, the complainant demanded back the jewelry, which was given at the time of marriage, but he refused to give it back, therefore, false FIR has been lodged.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence and material on record, learned trial court has recorded a categorical finding that the prosecution witnesses could not prove the prosecution case and the said witnesses have not been got declared hostile and cross-examined. The relevant findings recorded by the learned trial court are extracted herein below:- "इस ्ऺकार इस गवाह ने भी अिभयोजन के इस कथन का समथर्न नहीं िकया है िक उिमला को अिभयु्वगण ने जला िदया। अिभयोजन ने इस गवाह को प्ष्शोही भी घोिषत नहीं िकया और न ही इससे कोई िजरह िकया। इस ्ऺकार इस गवाह ने भी अिभयु्वगण के इस बयान का समथर्न िकया िक उिमला की मृत्यु दूध गमर् करने के दौरान आग लगने के कारण हुयी थी। अिभयु्वगण अजय नरायण और अिनल कु मार पर यह आरोप लगाया गया िक इन लोगों ने सन्तोषीनंदन के साथ िमलकर उिमला को आत्महत्या करने के िलए दुष््ऺेिरत िकया परन्तु अिभयोजन ने ऐसा कोई साष्य ्ऺस्तुत नहीं िकया िजससे यह सािबत हो िक अिभयु्वगण अजय नरायण और अिनल कु मार ने अिभयु्व सन्तोषीनंदन के साथ िमलकर अपने सामान्य आशय के अ्षसर में उिमला को आत्महत्या के िलये दुष््ऺेिरत िकया। तद्नुसार अिभयोजन अिभयु्व संतोषीनंदन के िवरु्ध धारा 306 भा०दं०सं० तथा अिभयु्व अजय नरायण और अिनल कु मार के िवरु्ध धारा 306 5 A378D No. 387 of 2008 सपिठत धारा 34 का आरोप सािबत करने में िवफल रहा है। अिभयु्वगण के िवरु्ध 20 हजार रुपये की मांग के संबंध में धारा ¾ दहेज ्ऺितषेध अिधिनयम का आरोप लगाया गया है परन्तु जैसा िक धारा 498ए भा०दं०सं० के आरोप के सम्बन्ध में ्ऺस्तुत की गयी साष्य के िव्शेषण से स्प्ि है िक अिभयोजन अिभयु्वगणों ्षारा दहेज की मांग को सािबत नहीं कर सका है। अिभयोजन के िकसी भी गवाह ने इस तथ्य को सािबत नहीं िकया िक अिभयु्वगण के ्षारा 20 हजार रुपये की मांग की गयी और इस सम्बन्ध में पंचायत की गयी और गावं के पंचायत के िकसी भी सदस्य को ्ऺस्तुत करके इस तथ्य को सािबत नहीं कराया गया है। तद्नुसार अिभयोजन धारा ¾ दहेज ्ऺितषेध अिधिनयम के आरोप को सािबत करने में भी िवफल रहा है।"

14. Learned A.G.A. though vehemently argued that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order without considering the evidence and material on record, however, he could not point out any contradiction to the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial court.

15. In view of above and after considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order in accordance with law after considering the evidence and material on record. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the finding recorded by the learned trial court.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramesh and Others versus State of Haryana; (2017) 1 SCC 529, has held that before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained, which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. The relevant paragraphs 24 and 26 are extracted hereinbelow:- "24. We have duly appreciated the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties on both sides. No doubt, the High Court was dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the trial court which had acquitted the 6 A378D No. 387 of 2008 appellants herein. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However, this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal against the acquittal, is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible.

25. x x x x x

26. This legal position is reiterated in Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 and the following passage therefrom needs to be extracted: (SCC p. 732, paras 12-13) “12. The legislature in its wisdom, unlike an appeal by an accused in the case of conviction, introduced the concept of leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 CrPC. This is an indication that appeal from acquittal is placed on a somewhat different footing than a normal appeal. But once leave is granted, then there is hardly any difference between a normal appeal and an appeal against acquittal. The concept of leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been introduced as an additional stage between the order of acquittal and consideration of the judgment by the appellate court on merits as in the case of a regular appeal. Sub- 7 A378D No. 387 of 2008 section (3) of Section 378 clearly provides that no appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. This legislative intent of attaching a definite value to the judgment of acquittal cannot be ignored by the courts."

13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. A benefit that has accrued to an accused by the judgment of acquittal can be taken away and he can be convicted on appeal, only when the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law. Upon examination of the evidence before it, the appellate court should be fully convinced that the findings returned by the trial court are really erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law."

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 116, has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

18. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal has rightly and in accordance with law been passed considering the evidence and material on record by the learned trial court and nothing could be pointed out, on the basis of which a contrary view is possible, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court and no case for grant of leave to file the appeal is made out. The application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. filed by the State and Criminal the complainant are accordingly dismissed. Revision filed by 8 A378D No. 387 of 2008 Consequently, the appeal filed by the State is also dismissed.

19. A copy of this order shall be placed on record of the Criminal Revision No.271 of 2007 also. October 27, 2025 Saurabh (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Balram Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. Defective No.387/2008 and on behalf of the revisionist in Criminal Revision No.271/2007. 2 A378D No. 387 of 2008

3. On due consideration of the affidavits filed in support of the application for condonation of delay as well as the reports submitted by the office, the grounds are sufficient to condone the delay occurred in filing the Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State as well as the Criminal Revision by the informant.

4. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and the delay occurred in filing the Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State as well as the Criminal Revision by the informant is hereby condoned. Order on Memo of Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. and Criminal Revision

5. Since the judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.394 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs. Santoshi Nandan Shukla and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.80/2000, under Sections 306/498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Purwa, District Unnao has been challenged in the appeal, for which the aforesaid Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State and Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant, therefore, both are clubbed together and are being decided by a common order.

6. Learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal has been passed by the learned trial court without considering the evidence and material on record, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside. Thus, he submits that the leave to appeal may be granted and the appeal may be heard and decided on merit.

7. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by the complainant: Pratap Shanker Tripathi alleging therein that his sister was married about 12 years ago with Santoshi Nandan Shukla S/o Late Parmanandan Shukla R/o Village Pasakheda as per Hindu rites and rituals, wherein dowry was given as per capacity. After the marriage, Santoshi Nandan Shukla as well as his family members started harassing the sister of the complainant for demand of additional dowry, in regard to which a complaint was lodged at Police Station Purwa, District Unnao, 3 A378D No. 387 of 2008 wherein the brother-in-law of the complainant had compromised the matter and assured that they will not harass the sister of the complainant. However, after some days they again started harassing sister of the complainant, which was informed to the complainant by his sister herself and it was also informed that they beat her for fulfilling demand of Rs.20,000/- and also threatened her that in case demand is not fulfilled, they will burn her. When the complainant asked about this to his brother- in-law, he also told that in case Rs.20,000/- is not given to him, then his sister would be burnt. This was said by him before Ajai Narain Bajpai and Anil Kumar, who are the nephews of Santoshi Nandan Shukla. Thereafter, the complainant came back but on 29.03.2000 at about 09:00 AM, the accused persons had burnt the sister of complainant and cremated her body without informing the complainant. When the complainant came to know about the incident through a villager on

30.03.2000, he lodged the FIR at Police Station Purwa, District Unnao on

31.03.2000.

8. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed, on which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and the matter was committed to the court of session, being session trial. The charge against the accused Santoshi Nandan Shukla was framed under Section 306 I.P.C., who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed for trial.

9. The accused persons Ajai Narayan and Anil Kumar were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and charges under Section 306 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. were framed. Thereafter on 05.03.2004, charges under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were also framed against the accused persons, namely, Santoshi Nandan Shukla, Ajai Narayan and Anil Kumar.

10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the complainant Pratap Shanker Tripathi as P.W.-1, Raj Kishore as P.W.-2, Shiv Prakash as P.W.-3, Rameshwar Tiwari as P.W.-4, Constable Amar Pal Singh as P.W.-5, Vinod Kumar Dwivedi as P.W.-6 and Hasan Ahmad, Naib Tehsildar.

11. The prosecution also placed on record and proved the documentary 4 A378D No. 387 of 2008 evidence, i.e. the Written Tehrir as Ex. Ka-1, Applications as Ex. Ka-2, P.M. Report as Ex. Ka-3 and Ex. Ka-4, Chik FIR as Ex. Ka-5, G.D. as Ex. Ka-6, Panchayatnama as Ex. Ka-7, Letter R.I. as Ex. Ka-8, Letter C.M.O. as Ex. Ka-9, Photo Lash as Ex. Ka-10 and Challan Lash as Ex. Ka-11. Authenticity of all these documents were accepted by the accused persons under Section 294 Cr.P.C.

12. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they stated that false FIR has been lodged and they have been roped illegally. The accused Santoshi Nandan Shukla also stated that his wife was boiling milk when her saree caught fire and the neighborours took her to hospital and as soon as he got the information, he also reached the hospital. His wife died during treatment and thereafter, the complainant demanded back the jewelry, which was given at the time of marriage, but he refused to give it back, therefore, false FIR has been lodged.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence and material on record, learned trial court has recorded a categorical finding that the prosecution witnesses could not prove the prosecution case and the said witnesses have not been got declared hostile and cross-examined. The relevant findings recorded by the learned trial court are extracted herein below:- "इस ्ऺकार इस गवाह ने भी अिभयोजन के इस कथन का समथर्न नहीं िकया है िक उिमला को अिभयु्वगण ने जला िदया। अिभयोजन ने इस गवाह को प्ष्शोही भी घोिषत नहीं िकया और न ही इससे कोई िजरह िकया। इस ्ऺकार इस गवाह ने भी अिभयु्वगण के इस बयान का समथर्न िकया िक उिमला की मृत्यु दूध गमर् करने के दौरान आग लगने के कारण हुयी थी। अिभयु्वगण अजय नरायण और अिनल कु मार पर यह आरोप लगाया गया िक इन लोगों ने सन्तोषीनंदन के साथ िमलकर उिमला को आत्महत्या करने के िलए दुष््ऺेिरत िकया परन्तु अिभयोजन ने ऐसा कोई साष्य ्ऺस्तुत नहीं िकया िजससे यह सािबत हो िक अिभयु्वगण अजय नरायण और अिनल कु मार ने अिभयु्व सन्तोषीनंदन के साथ िमलकर अपने सामान्य आशय के अ्षसर में उिमला को आत्महत्या के िलये दुष््ऺेिरत िकया। तद्नुसार अिभयोजन अिभयु्व संतोषीनंदन के िवरु्ध धारा 306 भा०दं०सं० तथा अिभयु्व अजय नरायण और अिनल कु मार के िवरु्ध धारा 306 5 A378D No. 387 of 2008 सपिठत धारा 34 का आरोप सािबत करने में िवफल रहा है। अिभयु्वगण के िवरु्ध 20 हजार रुपये की मांग के संबंध में धारा ¾ दहेज ्ऺितषेध अिधिनयम का आरोप लगाया गया है परन्तु जैसा िक धारा 498ए भा०दं०सं० के आरोप के सम्बन्ध में ्ऺस्तुत की गयी साष्य के िव्शेषण से स्प्ि है िक अिभयोजन अिभयु्वगणों ्षारा दहेज की मांग को सािबत नहीं कर सका है। अिभयोजन के िकसी भी गवाह ने इस तथ्य को सािबत नहीं िकया िक अिभयु्वगण के ्षारा 20 हजार रुपये की मांग की गयी और इस सम्बन्ध में पंचायत की गयी और गावं के पंचायत के िकसी भी सदस्य को ्ऺस्तुत करके इस तथ्य को सािबत नहीं कराया गया है। तद्नुसार अिभयोजन धारा ¾ दहेज ्ऺितषेध अिधिनयम के आरोप को सािबत करने में भी िवफल रहा है।"

14. Learned A.G.A. though vehemently argued that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order without considering the evidence and material on record, however, he could not point out any contradiction to the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial court.

15. In view of above and after considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order in accordance with law after considering the evidence and material on record. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the finding recorded by the learned trial court.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramesh and Others versus State of Haryana; (2017) 1 SCC 529, has held that before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained, which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. The relevant paragraphs 24 and 26 are extracted hereinbelow:- "24. We have duly appreciated the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties on both sides. No doubt, the High Court was dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the trial court which had acquitted the 6 A378D No. 387 of 2008 appellants herein. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However, this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal against the acquittal, is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible.

25. x x x x x

26. This legal position is reiterated in Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 and the following passage therefrom needs to be extracted: (SCC p. 732, paras 12-13) “12. The legislature in its wisdom, unlike an appeal by an accused in the case of conviction, introduced the concept of leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 CrPC. This is an indication that appeal from acquittal is placed on a somewhat different footing than a normal appeal. But once leave is granted, then there is hardly any difference between a normal appeal and an appeal against acquittal. The concept of leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been introduced as an additional stage between the order of acquittal and consideration of the judgment by the appellate court on merits as in the case of a regular appeal. Sub- 7 A378D No. 387 of 2008 section (3) of Section 378 clearly provides that no appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. This legislative intent of attaching a definite value to the judgment of acquittal cannot be ignored by the courts."

13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. A benefit that has accrued to an accused by the judgment of acquittal can be taken away and he can be convicted on appeal, only when the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law. Upon examination of the evidence before it, the appellate court should be fully convinced that the findings returned by the trial court are really erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law."

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 116, has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

18. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal has rightly and in accordance with law been passed considering the evidence and material on record by the learned trial court and nothing could be pointed out, on the basis of which a contrary view is possible, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court and no case for grant of leave to file the appeal is made out. The application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. filed by the State and Criminal the complainant are accordingly dismissed. Revision filed by 8 A378D No. 387 of 2008 Consequently, the appeal filed by the State is also dismissed.

19. A copy of this order shall be placed on record of the Criminal Revision No.271 of 2007 also. October 27, 2025 Saurabh (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench