Ram Niwas Pathak And Others vs Party(s)

material on record and dealing it appropriately. The learned trial court has failed to consider the injuries sustained by the injured persons, which were caused by the respondents with a common intention. The impugned judgment and order has been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures and the order of acquittal under Section 147, 148, 307, 504 and 506 IPC is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be set aside and the respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. Thus the application is liable to be allowed and leave to appeal may be granted. 2 A378 No. 2966 of 2005

4. We have considered the submissions of learned A.G.A. as well as gone through the records.

5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Hanuman Prasad Pathak is resident of Village Pathnauli, Gram Sabha Sirisanda, Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad. He gave a written complaint on

10.12.2001 at Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad to the effect that his co-tenure holder had allured the daughter of Ramlagan son of Ram Dular Pathak. Today in the morning at about 8:00 a.m., he was putting pillars aside the ghoora of the complainant. On being objected, Ram Niwas Pathak, Anil Pathak, Arun Pathak, Baijnath Pathak, who were having farsa and lathi in their hands have beaten the complainant, his father Radhey Shyam Pathak, brother Om Prakash Pathak, Atul Kumar Pathak and his aunt(chachi) Vidyawati, on account of which they suffered serious injuries. Bajrang Pathak and Shambhu Nath Pathak and others, resident of the village, reached on the spot and on their intervention, the accused went away abusing them. They also threatened that if the case is lodged, then they would be killed. Baijnath had farsa in his hand and three others lathi. On the basis of the written complaint of the complainant, F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.905/2001 under Section 307,323,324,504 an 506 IPC was registered on 14.06.2008.

6. The investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against six persons including Kailash Nath and Ram Adhar and adding sections 147 and 148 IPC charge was framed against the accused. The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded for trial.

7. In order to prove it's case, the prosecution adduced evidence of Hanuman Prasad Pathak as P.W.-1, Om Prakash as P.W.-2, Shambhu Nath Pathak as P.W.-3, Ajay Kumar Singh E.M.O. Sriram Hospital, Faizabad as P.W..-4, S.H.O. Rasda Ajay Kumar Rai as P.W.-5.

8. After prosecution evidences, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,in which they denied the prosecution story. They stated that they have falsely been implicated as daughter of the uncle of the complainant had ran away with somebody about 2 years back and enmity. The witnesses have given the evidence on account of enmity. No witness was examined by the defence. However, in 3 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 documentary evidence, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Saroj Pathak daughter of Ram Lagan, dated 17.04.2000 was placed on record.

9. After hearing the Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the defence and considering the evidence and material on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that no charge is proved against the accused Kailash Nath and Ram Aadhar and the only charge under Section 323/34 and 324/34 IPC is proved against the accused Ram Niwas Pathak, Arun Kumar, Anil Kumar and Baijnath and, accordingly, convicted them for the said offence. However, they have been acquitted under Section 147, 148, 307, 504, 506 IPC on the ground that the said charges could not be proved beyond doubt.

10. Learned trial court dealt with the five arguments advanced on behalf of the defence. The first of which was that only four accused, namely, Ram Niwas Pathak, Arun Kumar, Anil Kumar and Baijnath were named in the F.I.R. but the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against six accused adding Kailash Nath and Ram Aadhar but they were not named in the F.IR. and no evidence has also been given by any witness against them. Learned trial court after considering the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who have stated that in the incident of beating, Ram Niwas Pathak, Arun Kumar, Anil Kumar and Baijnath were involved but they have not stated about involvement of Kailash Nath and Ram Aadhar, held that on the basis of evidence and material on record, Kailash Nath and Ram Aadhar have not been found to have been involved in the incident and no charge is proved against them.

11. The second argument advanced by the defence was that the motive of the incident was allurement of Saroj Pathak daughter of Ram Lagan by Ghanshyam son of Baijnath and this motive has not been proved by the prosecution. After considering the evidence and material on record and the statement of the daughter of Ram Lagan under Section 164 Cr.P.C., learned trial court came to the conclusion that she was not allured by the son of Baijnath and the perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. indicate that the incident had occurred on account of putting of pillars aside the ghoora of the complainant. Therefore, the motive of the incident cannot be said to be the allurement of the daughter of Ram Lagan but the reason of the 4 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 incident was putting pillars aside the ghoora of the complainant, on account of which, marpeet had taken place.

12. The third argument advanced by the defence was the place of incident as changed by the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore the prosecution story is doubtful.Learned trial court upon considering the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, has come to the conclusion that the place of incident was not changed. However, in beating, it is natural that the injureds may not have been beaten at one and the same place and they must have been beaten in front or back side of the house of the Sitaram because at the time of beating, the injured would have tried to save them. Therefore, merely, because the witnesses have stated that they were beaten in front of or back side of the house of Sitaram, it cannot be said that the place of incident was changed.

13. The learned trial court further considering the arguments of the prosecution, that the Investigating Officer was in collusion with the accused who had not attempted to arrest the named accused and tried to change the place of incident and to save them, the wrong statements of the witnesses were recorded and included the name of the Kailash Nath and Ram Adhar with the named accused, therefore on account of irregularities committed by the Investigating Officer, the prosecution case would not be affected and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that on account of the irregularities committed by the Investigating Officer, the prosecution story would not be affected.

14. The fourth argument advanced on behalf of the defence was that only independent witness produced in the trial was P.W.-3; Shambhu Narayan Pathak and he in his cross examination on page no.2, has stated that when he reached, then he saw that Om Prakash was being beaten and he has seen only one accused beating Om Prakash but he had not seen as to who was beating the father of Om Prakash. No other independent witness and the injured were examined, therefore prosecution story itself is doubtful. The prosecution argued that it is not necessary that all the injured and witnesses should be examined. The learned trial court, after considering the rival contentions and the case law relied by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that it is not in agreement with the contention of the 5 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 accused that other injured and independent witnesses would have been got examined. The learned trial court also recorded that the incident is of the day time. The witness P.W.-1; Hanuman Prasad Pathak and P.W.-2; Om Prakash Pathak are the injured, therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded and P.W.-3; Shambhu Nath Pathak has also supported their evidence.

15. The fifth and the last argument advanced on behalf of the defence was that the daughter of the uncle of the complainant Ram Lagan was not going to her in-laws house, therefore the persons from her in-laws house had come for her vidai, in which some altercation had taken place, on account of which, the persons of the in-laws house had beaten the complainant, his family members and on account of the enmity, the complainant had roped the accuseds. The learned trial court upon considering the evidence and material on record did not agree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused on the ground that if the persons from house of the in-laws of Saroj Pathak, daugther of Ram Lagan would have beaten the complainant for her vidai, then they would have first beaten Ram Lagan, who is father of their daughter-in-law but no injuries has been sustained by Ram Lagan.

16. In view of above, after considering and dealing with all the arguments of the defence as well as prosecution and considering the evidence of P.W.-4 Ajai Kumar Singh E.M.O., who stated that injury no.1 to Om Prakash Pathak would have come by a sharp edged weapon and to know the nature of injury, the X Ray was advised. The X Ray was also advised for injury nos.1,2,3 and 5 of Radheysham and injury no.3 of Hanuman Prasad Pathak but the prosecution has not produced the X Ray reports of Om Prakash Pathak, Radheyshyam and Hanuman Prasad Pathak. Thus, it is apparent that on the advise of doctor, the X Ray of the injured was not got done. Thus, on the basis of the medico legal reports, Ex Ka 2 to Ex. Ka 6 and the evidence of P.W.-4 offence under Section 323/34 and 324/34 are only proved.

17. It has further been recorded that on the basis of the evidence of Hanuman Prasad Pathak, Om Prakash Pathak, Shambhu Nath Pathak and Medical Officer, the accused Baij Nath had farsa in his hand and the 6 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 remaining accuseds had lathi and they with a common intention were putting pillars aside the side of the ghoora of the complainant and on being prevented had beaten Hanuman Prasad Pathak, his father Radhey Shyam Pathak, brother Om Prakash Pathak, Atul Kumar Pathak and his aunt(chachi) Vidyawati, in which they sustained injuries. Thus the charge under Section 323/34 and 324/34 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted for the said offences. Hence this appeal has been filed by the State challenging the impugned judgment and order with this application for leave to appeal.

18. 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 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 7 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 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- 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." 8 A378 No. 2966 of 2005

19. 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.

20. Adverting to the facts of the present case and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence and material on record, which has been discussed above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the finding recorded by the trial court and nothing could be pointed out, on account of which, a contrary view is possible therefore no interference is required by this Court. Even otherwise, it is settled that even if two views are possible, out of which one goes in favour of the defence, then the said view should have been taken. This Court is of the view that challenge to the impugned order has been made on the basis of misconceived and baseless grounds and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal under section 147,148,307,504 & 506 IPC has rightly been passed in accordance with law after considering the evidence and material on record by the learned trial court, 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.

21.The application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. November 18, 2025 Akanksha Sri/- (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

material on record and dealing it appropriately. The learned trial court has failed to consider the injuries sustained by the injured persons, which were caused by the respondents with a common intention. The impugned judgment and order has been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures and the order of acquittal under Section 147, 148, 307, 504 and 506 IPC is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be set aside and the respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. Thus the application is liable to be allowed and leave to appeal may be granted. 2 A378 No. 2966 of 2005

4. We have considered the submissions of learned A.G.A. as well as gone through the records.

5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Hanuman Prasad Pathak is resident of Village Pathnauli, Gram Sabha Sirisanda, Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad. He gave a written complaint on

10.12.2001 at Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad to the effect that his co-tenure holder had allured the daughter of Ramlagan son of Ram Dular Pathak. Today in the morning at about 8:00 a.m., he was putting pillars aside the ghoora of the complainant. On being objected, Ram Niwas Pathak, Anil Pathak, Arun Pathak, Baijnath Pathak, who were having farsa and lathi in their hands have beaten the complainant, his father Radhey Shyam Pathak, brother Om Prakash Pathak, Atul Kumar Pathak and his aunt(chachi) Vidyawati, on account of which they suffered serious injuries. Bajrang Pathak and Shambhu Nath Pathak and others, resident of the village, reached on the spot and on their intervention, the accused went away abusing them. They also threatened that if the case is lodged, then they would be killed. Baijnath had farsa in his hand and three others lathi. On the basis of the written complaint of the complainant, F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.905/2001 under Section 307,323,324,504 an 506 IPC was registered on 14.06.2008.

6. The investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against six persons including Kailash Nath and Ram Adhar and adding sections 147 and 148 IPC charge was framed against the accused. The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded for trial.

7. In order to prove it's case, the prosecution adduced evidence of Hanuman Prasad Pathak as P.W.-1, Om Prakash as P.W.-2, Shambhu Nath Pathak as P.W.-3, Ajay Kumar Singh E.M.O. Sriram Hospital, Faizabad as P.W..-4, S.H.O. Rasda Ajay Kumar Rai as P.W.-5.

8. After prosecution evidences, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,in which they denied the prosecution story. They stated that they have falsely been implicated as daughter of the uncle of the complainant had ran away with somebody about 2 years back and enmity. The witnesses have given the evidence on account of enmity. No witness was examined by the defence. However, in 3 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 documentary evidence, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Saroj Pathak daughter of Ram Lagan, dated 17.04.2000 was placed on record.

9. After hearing the Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the defence and considering the evidence and material on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that no charge is proved against the accused Kailash Nath and Ram Aadhar and the only charge under Section 323/34 and 324/34 IPC is proved against the accused Ram Niwas Pathak, Arun Kumar, Anil Kumar and Baijnath and, accordingly, convicted them for the said offence. However, they have been acquitted under Section 147, 148, 307, 504, 506 IPC on the ground that the said charges could not be proved beyond doubt.

10. Learned trial court dealt with the five arguments advanced on behalf of the defence. The first of which was that only four accused, namely, Ram Niwas Pathak, Arun Kumar, Anil Kumar and Baijnath were named in the F.I.R. but the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against six accused adding Kailash Nath and Ram Aadhar but they were not named in the F.IR. and no evidence has also been given by any witness against them. Learned trial court after considering the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who have stated that in the incident of beating, Ram Niwas Pathak, Arun Kumar, Anil Kumar and Baijnath were involved but they have not stated about involvement of Kailash Nath and Ram Aadhar, held that on the basis of evidence and material on record, Kailash Nath and Ram Aadhar have not been found to have been involved in the incident and no charge is proved against them.

11. The second argument advanced by the defence was that the motive of the incident was allurement of Saroj Pathak daughter of Ram Lagan by Ghanshyam son of Baijnath and this motive has not been proved by the prosecution. After considering the evidence and material on record and the statement of the daughter of Ram Lagan under Section 164 Cr.P.C., learned trial court came to the conclusion that she was not allured by the son of Baijnath and the perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. indicate that the incident had occurred on account of putting of pillars aside the ghoora of the complainant. Therefore, the motive of the incident cannot be said to be the allurement of the daughter of Ram Lagan but the reason of the 4 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 incident was putting pillars aside the ghoora of the complainant, on account of which, marpeet had taken place.

12. The third argument advanced by the defence was the place of incident as changed by the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore the prosecution story is doubtful.Learned trial court upon considering the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, has come to the conclusion that the place of incident was not changed. However, in beating, it is natural that the injureds may not have been beaten at one and the same place and they must have been beaten in front or back side of the house of the Sitaram because at the time of beating, the injured would have tried to save them. Therefore, merely, because the witnesses have stated that they were beaten in front of or back side of the house of Sitaram, it cannot be said that the place of incident was changed.

13. The learned trial court further considering the arguments of the prosecution, that the Investigating Officer was in collusion with the accused who had not attempted to arrest the named accused and tried to change the place of incident and to save them, the wrong statements of the witnesses were recorded and included the name of the Kailash Nath and Ram Adhar with the named accused, therefore on account of irregularities committed by the Investigating Officer, the prosecution case would not be affected and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that on account of the irregularities committed by the Investigating Officer, the prosecution story would not be affected.

14. The fourth argument advanced on behalf of the defence was that only independent witness produced in the trial was P.W.-3; Shambhu Narayan Pathak and he in his cross examination on page no.2, has stated that when he reached, then he saw that Om Prakash was being beaten and he has seen only one accused beating Om Prakash but he had not seen as to who was beating the father of Om Prakash. No other independent witness and the injured were examined, therefore prosecution story itself is doubtful. The prosecution argued that it is not necessary that all the injured and witnesses should be examined. The learned trial court, after considering the rival contentions and the case law relied by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that it is not in agreement with the contention of the 5 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 accused that other injured and independent witnesses would have been got examined. The learned trial court also recorded that the incident is of the day time. The witness P.W.-1; Hanuman Prasad Pathak and P.W.-2; Om Prakash Pathak are the injured, therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded and P.W.-3; Shambhu Nath Pathak has also supported their evidence.

15. The fifth and the last argument advanced on behalf of the defence was that the daughter of the uncle of the complainant Ram Lagan was not going to her in-laws house, therefore the persons from her in-laws house had come for her vidai, in which some altercation had taken place, on account of which, the persons of the in-laws house had beaten the complainant, his family members and on account of the enmity, the complainant had roped the accuseds. The learned trial court upon considering the evidence and material on record did not agree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused on the ground that if the persons from house of the in-laws of Saroj Pathak, daugther of Ram Lagan would have beaten the complainant for her vidai, then they would have first beaten Ram Lagan, who is father of their daughter-in-law but no injuries has been sustained by Ram Lagan.

16. In view of above, after considering and dealing with all the arguments of the defence as well as prosecution and considering the evidence of P.W.-4 Ajai Kumar Singh E.M.O., who stated that injury no.1 to Om Prakash Pathak would have come by a sharp edged weapon and to know the nature of injury, the X Ray was advised. The X Ray was also advised for injury nos.1,2,3 and 5 of Radheysham and injury no.3 of Hanuman Prasad Pathak but the prosecution has not produced the X Ray reports of Om Prakash Pathak, Radheyshyam and Hanuman Prasad Pathak. Thus, it is apparent that on the advise of doctor, the X Ray of the injured was not got done. Thus, on the basis of the medico legal reports, Ex Ka 2 to Ex. Ka 6 and the evidence of P.W.-4 offence under Section 323/34 and 324/34 are only proved.

17. It has further been recorded that on the basis of the evidence of Hanuman Prasad Pathak, Om Prakash Pathak, Shambhu Nath Pathak and Medical Officer, the accused Baij Nath had farsa in his hand and the 6 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 remaining accuseds had lathi and they with a common intention were putting pillars aside the side of the ghoora of the complainant and on being prevented had beaten Hanuman Prasad Pathak, his father Radhey Shyam Pathak, brother Om Prakash Pathak, Atul Kumar Pathak and his aunt(chachi) Vidyawati, in which they sustained injuries. Thus the charge under Section 323/34 and 324/34 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted for the said offences. Hence this appeal has been filed by the State challenging the impugned judgment and order with this application for leave to appeal.

18. 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 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 7 A378 No. 2966 of 2005 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- 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." 8 A378 No. 2966 of 2005

19. 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.

20. Adverting to the facts of the present case and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence and material on record, which has been discussed above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the finding recorded by the trial court and nothing could be pointed out, on account of which, a contrary view is possible therefore no interference is required by this Court. Even otherwise, it is settled that even if two views are possible, out of which one goes in favour of the defence, then the said view should have been taken. This Court is of the view that challenge to the impugned order has been made on the basis of misconceived and baseless grounds and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal under section 147,148,307,504 & 506 IPC has rightly been passed in accordance with law after considering the evidence and material on record by the learned trial court, 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.

21.The application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. November 18, 2025 Akanksha Sri/- (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench