State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko v. Vinod And Others

2. By means of the present appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act, the State has sought leave to appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 06.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Session Trial No. 586 of 2002 arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kamlapur, District- Sitapur, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents, namely, Vinod, Santosh, Rama Shankar and Kadhile for the offenses of Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

3. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that as per the prosecution case, on 18.02.2000, the informant's father- Lalvihari went to market of Barai, Jalalpur along with his son, namely, Prakash and when they were coming back after purchasing the vegetables at about 6:30 pm they reached near the place of Natveer Baba, where their covillager- Kadhile came and offered informant's father bidi for smoking and then both started smoking. Further allegations are that, at the same time, Sundar s/o Lalji, who was behind pataur, showing his gun, started giving them life threat, meanwhile, Vinod s/o Sirdar armed with ballam, Santosh s/o Moolchand armed with banka, Rama Shankar s/o Sundar armed with lathi (all resident of Bannipurva) and Shyam Neta s/o Puttu Gadariya r/o Chaubepur, Police Station- Manpur armed with lathi surrounded the informant's father and started assaulting him. The informant's brother- Prakash went away from the place of the incident due to fear. On the alarm of the informant's father, covillagers- 2 GOVA No. 24 of 2025 Puttu s/o Bachnu and Jodha s/o Sarju, who were applying fertilizers in the nearby paddy field, challenged the assailants. In response to which, the assailants also gave life threat to the aforesaid covillagers. In furtherance of the said incident, the victims rushed to village. After coming back to home, Prakash, Puttu and Jodha narrated the incident to the informant, then the informant alongwith other persons reached at the place of the incident and found his father's body lying on the ground. It is also alleged that in January, 1999, Santosh Kumar implicated the informant's father (deceased) in a criminal case, of which, trial was pending, and due to enmity, his father was killed by the accused persons. It has further been submitted that on written complaint of the informant, the F.I.R. No. 176/2000 u/s 147, 148, 149, 504, 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was lodged against Sundar, Vinod, Santosh, Rama Shankar, Shyam Neta and Kadhile on 19.07.2000 at 06:15 am. The inquest and postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. Thereafter, site plan was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded. The Investigating Officer submitted that charge-sheet against the accused person u/s 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the trial was proceeded and charge was framed against the accused persons. However, the accused persons denied the guilt and requested for trial. During the course of trial, two accused persons, namely, Sundar and Shyam died, as a result, their trial was abated and trial was proceeded for the rest of the accused persons, namely, Vinod, Santosh, Rama Shankar and Kadhile.

4. The prosecution has placed five witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1 - Dhruv (informant), P.W.-2 - Puttulal (eye-witness), P.W.-3 - Dr. Harekrishna Fulauriya (postmortem worker), P.W.-4 - retired Sub Inspector- Rajendra Prasad Verma (writer of chik F.I.R.) and P.W.-5 - retired Inspector- Ramsahodar Singh.

5. The prosecution has relied upon 17 documentary evidence, i.e., written complaint, postmortem report, chik F.I.R., certificate for loss of G.D. by which the F.I.R. was registered, photocopy of the G.D., site plan, charge- sheet, panchayatnama etc.

6. Submission of learned A.G.A. is that the P.W.-1 supported the prosecution version, who deposed that the information of the incident was given to him by Prakash, Puttu and Jodha. The P.W.-2 - Puttu was declared hostile. The injuries corroborate the manner of assault and learned trial Court 3 GOVA No. 24 of 2025 failed to appreciate the deposition of the P.W.-1 and the P.W.-3 - doctor. It has, thus, been submitted that the leave to appeal is liable to be allowed by admitting the appeal and summoning the private respondents.

7. Having perused the paper book and the impugned judgement passed by the trial Court, it is undisputed fact that the P.W.-1 had not seen the incident as on an information given to him by his brother- Prakash, Puttu and Jodha, he reached on the spot and saw that the body of his father was lying on the ground. Neither Prakash nor Jodha were produced before the trial Court. The P.W.-2, who is alleged eye-witness as per the impugned F.I.R., has not supported the prosecution version. The P.W.-2 has categorically stated that he did not see the incident of killing of the informant's father. There were three eye-witnesses at the place of the incident as per the prosecution case, out of whom, one Prakash was son of the deceased. However, neither Prakash (son of the deceased) nor one eye-witness- Jodha was produced before the trial Court. Even though, Puttu was produced before the trial Court, who has categorically stated that he had not seen that who has killed the informant's father.

8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

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 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 trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondent herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear 4 GOVA No. 24 of 2025 to be improbable or perverse.

11. With the above observations, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed at the admission stage. September 26, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. By means of the present appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act, the State has sought leave to appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 06.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Session Trial No. 586 of 2002 arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kamlapur, District- Sitapur, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents, namely, Vinod, Santosh, Rama Shankar and Kadhile for the offenses of Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

3. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that as per the prosecution case, on 18.02.2000, the informant's father- Lalvihari went to market of Barai, Jalalpur along with his son, namely, Prakash and when they were coming back after purchasing the vegetables at about 6:30 pm they reached near the place of Natveer Baba, where their covillager- Kadhile came and offered informant's father bidi for smoking and then both started smoking. Further allegations are that, at the same time, Sundar s/o Lalji, who was behind pataur, showing his gun, started giving them life threat, meanwhile, Vinod s/o Sirdar armed with ballam, Santosh s/o Moolchand armed with banka, Rama Shankar s/o Sundar armed with lathi (all resident of Bannipurva) and Shyam Neta s/o Puttu Gadariya r/o Chaubepur, Police Station- Manpur armed with lathi surrounded the informant's father and started assaulting him. The informant's brother- Prakash went away from the place of the incident due to fear. On the alarm of the informant's father, covillagers- 2 GOVA No. 24 of 2025 Puttu s/o Bachnu and Jodha s/o Sarju, who were applying fertilizers in the nearby paddy field, challenged the assailants. In response to which, the assailants also gave life threat to the aforesaid covillagers. In furtherance of the said incident, the victims rushed to village. After coming back to home, Prakash, Puttu and Jodha narrated the incident to the informant, then the informant alongwith other persons reached at the place of the incident and found his father's body lying on the ground. It is also alleged that in January, 1999, Santosh Kumar implicated the informant's father (deceased) in a criminal case, of which, trial was pending, and due to enmity, his father was killed by the accused persons. It has further been submitted that on written complaint of the informant, the F.I.R. No. 176/2000 u/s 147, 148, 149, 504, 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was lodged against Sundar, Vinod, Santosh, Rama Shankar, Shyam Neta and Kadhile on 19.07.2000 at 06:15 am. The inquest and postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. Thereafter, site plan was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded. The Investigating Officer submitted that charge-sheet against the accused person u/s 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the trial was proceeded and charge was framed against the accused persons. However, the accused persons denied the guilt and requested for trial. During the course of trial, two accused persons, namely, Sundar and Shyam died, as a result, their trial was abated and trial was proceeded for the rest of the accused persons, namely, Vinod, Santosh, Rama Shankar and Kadhile.

4. The prosecution has placed five witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1 - Dhruv (informant), P.W.-2 - Puttulal (eye-witness), P.W.-3 - Dr. Harekrishna Fulauriya (postmortem worker), P.W.-4 - retired Sub Inspector- Rajendra Prasad Verma (writer of chik F.I.R.) and P.W.-5 - retired Inspector- Ramsahodar Singh.

5. The prosecution has relied upon 17 documentary evidence, i.e., written complaint, postmortem report, chik F.I.R., certificate for loss of G.D. by which the F.I.R. was registered, photocopy of the G.D., site plan, charge- sheet, panchayatnama etc.

6. Submission of learned A.G.A. is that the P.W.-1 supported the prosecution version, who deposed that the information of the incident was given to him by Prakash, Puttu and Jodha. The P.W.-2 - Puttu was declared hostile. The injuries corroborate the manner of assault and learned trial Court 3 GOVA No. 24 of 2025 failed to appreciate the deposition of the P.W.-1 and the P.W.-3 - doctor. It has, thus, been submitted that the leave to appeal is liable to be allowed by admitting the appeal and summoning the private respondents.

7. Having perused the paper book and the impugned judgement passed by the trial Court, it is undisputed fact that the P.W.-1 had not seen the incident as on an information given to him by his brother- Prakash, Puttu and Jodha, he reached on the spot and saw that the body of his father was lying on the ground. Neither Prakash nor Jodha were produced before the trial Court. The P.W.-2, who is alleged eye-witness as per the impugned F.I.R., has not supported the prosecution version. The P.W.-2 has categorically stated that he did not see the incident of killing of the informant's father. There were three eye-witnesses at the place of the incident as per the prosecution case, out of whom, one Prakash was son of the deceased. However, neither Prakash (son of the deceased) nor one eye-witness- Jodha was produced before the trial Court. Even though, Puttu was produced before the trial Court, who has categorically stated that he had not seen that who has killed the informant's father.

8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

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 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 trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondent herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear 4 GOVA No. 24 of 2025 to be improbable or perverse.

11. With the above observations, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed at the admission stage. September 26, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench