State v. Kale Singh and others) arisen out of Case Crime No

1. We have heard Sri Saryu Prasad Tiwari - learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record available before us.

2. The present appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed for quashing the acquittal judgment & order dated 18.09.2024 passed the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar SC/ST/100066/2011 (State Vs. Kale Singh and others) arisen out of Case Crime No.234/2011 U/S 302 of I.P.C. and U/S 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Jaitpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned court below while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate the evidences in the correct manner. He further submits that as per the prosecution case son of the informant/appellant went for pitching a tent in the marriage ceremony of sister of the respondent no.2, where he was killed by respondent no.2 & 3 and two other co-accused persons and after keeping his body at the clinic of Dr. Kamlesh Nishad, they ran away. In the F.I.R., it is also alleged that accused-respondents were inimical with the deceased due to some skirmish taken place in between them two years back. The F.I.R. was lodged against Surendra Kumar, Kale Singh, Vineet Sigh and Vishal Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that investigation was conducted and after recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 2 CRLA No. 2869 of 2025 Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that offence is made out against four persons, namely, Kale Singh, Vineet Singh, Vishal Singh & Harendra Singh, however, since Vishal Singh was minor, his case was transferred to Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar and trial of other accused-respondents was committed to the court of Sessions and charge was framed. The accused-respondents denied the charge and requested for trial.

4. The prosecution had placed 5 witnesses before the trial court. Prosecution also relied on 11 documentary evidences duly proved by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidences, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused persons also placed defence witness, namely, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh as D.W.1, who denied the prosecution story. After hearing the parties, the impugned judgment and order was passed, by which the accused-respondents were acquitted.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant, father of the deceased (P.W.1) has supported the prosecution version and stated that on 2.6.2011 at about 3:00 P.M., his son went to pitch a tent in the marriage ceremony of daughter of Surendra Singh. On the next day, in the morning at 07:08 A.M., he received information through telephone that his son is injured, on which, he rushed immediately towards the place of incident and when he reached near the clinic of Dr. Kamal Dev, he saw that accused persons brought his son on a cot and ran away after leaving his son. P.W.1 examined his son and found that he was dead. When he asked the doctor about the condition of his son, he told that he did not know as to what happened to his son and stated that just now Surendra Singh alongwith other persons brought the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 put the body of his son in the jeep of Dr. Kamal Dev and came to his house. On his narration, complaint was scribed by his nephew Ramkesh, on which, complaint was given to the Police Station and F.I.R. was lodged. It is thus submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer of the appellant and submits 3 CRLA No. 2869 of 2025 that in the present case, except hear-say, no corroborative evidence was found, and therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned court below.

8. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment of the learned court below as well as material on record, it is undisputed fact that P.W.1 is not an eye witness and he received the information through telephone that his son was injured, however, he has not disclosed the name of the person, who made a call to him. The appellant also stated that body of his son was lying on a cot at the shop of Dr. Kamal Dev, however, Dr. Kamal Dev was not examined as witness. Further, Sonu @ Suresh Kumar - P.W.5, in his deposition, stated that he has completed his 12th Class and was doing the work of tent pitching. He also stated that on the date of incident, he alongwith Shrawan Kumar (deceased) went to pitch the tent in the marriage ceremony of daughter of Surendra Singh and came back at 5:30 P.M. alongwith Shrawan Kumar (deceased), but on the next day, he received information that Shrawan Kumar was killed. Dr. Omkar Nath - P.W.2, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, stated that no ante- mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased, however, sperm ejaculation was found on the genital part of body of the deceased in a dry condition. Therefore, this Court is of the view that learned court below has rightly observed that deceased and P.W.5, Sonu @ Suresh Kumar went to pitch the tent in the marriage ceremony of daughter of Surendra Singh, and thereafter, they came back and on the next day, Shrawan Kumar was found dead. Once there is an evidence that Shrawan Kumar came back from the venue alongwith deceased, where tent was being pitched, therefore, there is no illegality in the appreciation of evidences by the learned court below.

9. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to re- appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence and 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 the trial court, the High Court, as 4 CRLA No. 2869 of 2025 an appellate court in an appeal is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166.

10. Thus, having considered the matter in its totality and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra), we find that the learned trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondents herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear to be improbable or perverse.

11. On the basis of forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. September 9, 2025 GauraV/- (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. We have heard Sri Saryu Prasad Tiwari - learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record available before us.

2. The present appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed for quashing the acquittal judgment & order dated 18.09.2024 passed the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar SC/ST/100066/2011 (State Vs. Kale Singh and others) arisen out of Case Crime No.234/2011 U/S 302 of I.P.C. and U/S 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Jaitpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned court below while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate the evidences in the correct manner. He further submits that as per the prosecution case son of the informant/appellant went for pitching a tent in the marriage ceremony of sister of the respondent no.2, where he was killed by respondent no.2 & 3 and two other co-accused persons and after keeping his body at the clinic of Dr. Kamlesh Nishad, they ran away. In the F.I.R., it is also alleged that accused-respondents were inimical with the deceased due to some skirmish taken place in between them two years back. The F.I.R. was lodged against Surendra Kumar, Kale Singh, Vineet Sigh and Vishal Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that investigation was conducted and after recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 2 CRLA No. 2869 of 2025 Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that offence is made out against four persons, namely, Kale Singh, Vineet Singh, Vishal Singh & Harendra Singh, however, since Vishal Singh was minor, his case was transferred to Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar and trial of other accused-respondents was committed to the court of Sessions and charge was framed. The accused-respondents denied the charge and requested for trial.

4. The prosecution had placed 5 witnesses before the trial court. Prosecution also relied on 11 documentary evidences duly proved by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidences, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused persons also placed defence witness, namely, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh as D.W.1, who denied the prosecution story. After hearing the parties, the impugned judgment and order was passed, by which the accused-respondents were acquitted.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant, father of the deceased (P.W.1) has supported the prosecution version and stated that on 2.6.2011 at about 3:00 P.M., his son went to pitch a tent in the marriage ceremony of daughter of Surendra Singh. On the next day, in the morning at 07:08 A.M., he received information through telephone that his son is injured, on which, he rushed immediately towards the place of incident and when he reached near the clinic of Dr. Kamal Dev, he saw that accused persons brought his son on a cot and ran away after leaving his son. P.W.1 examined his son and found that he was dead. When he asked the doctor about the condition of his son, he told that he did not know as to what happened to his son and stated that just now Surendra Singh alongwith other persons brought the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 put the body of his son in the jeep of Dr. Kamal Dev and came to his house. On his narration, complaint was scribed by his nephew Ramkesh, on which, complaint was given to the Police Station and F.I.R. was lodged. It is thus submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer of the appellant and submits 3 CRLA No. 2869 of 2025 that in the present case, except hear-say, no corroborative evidence was found, and therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned court below.

8. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment of the learned court below as well as material on record, it is undisputed fact that P.W.1 is not an eye witness and he received the information through telephone that his son was injured, however, he has not disclosed the name of the person, who made a call to him. The appellant also stated that body of his son was lying on a cot at the shop of Dr. Kamal Dev, however, Dr. Kamal Dev was not examined as witness. Further, Sonu @ Suresh Kumar - P.W.5, in his deposition, stated that he has completed his 12th Class and was doing the work of tent pitching. He also stated that on the date of incident, he alongwith Shrawan Kumar (deceased) went to pitch the tent in the marriage ceremony of daughter of Surendra Singh and came back at 5:30 P.M. alongwith Shrawan Kumar (deceased), but on the next day, he received information that Shrawan Kumar was killed. Dr. Omkar Nath - P.W.2, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, stated that no ante- mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased, however, sperm ejaculation was found on the genital part of body of the deceased in a dry condition. Therefore, this Court is of the view that learned court below has rightly observed that deceased and P.W.5, Sonu @ Suresh Kumar went to pitch the tent in the marriage ceremony of daughter of Surendra Singh, and thereafter, they came back and on the next day, Shrawan Kumar was found dead. Once there is an evidence that Shrawan Kumar came back from the venue alongwith deceased, where tent was being pitched, therefore, there is no illegality in the appreciation of evidences by the learned court below.

9. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to re- appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence and 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 the trial court, the High Court, as 4 CRLA No. 2869 of 2025 an appellate court in an appeal is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166.

10. Thus, having considered the matter in its totality and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra), we find that the learned trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondents herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear to be improbable or perverse.

11. On the basis of forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. September 9, 2025 GauraV/- (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench