State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Dinesh Singh Alias Ram Bodh Singh v. Counsel for

the learned trial court.

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 available on record. He further submits that the prosecution has proved it's case beyond doubt but the learned trial court failed to consider the same and acquitted the respondent/accused after giving weightage to the minor discrepancies in investigation and the contradiction in the prosecution evidence, which could not have been done, therefore, the leave to appeal may be granted and the appeal may be heard and decided on merit.

7. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant; Vimla W/o deceased Shanker Dutt R/o Village Jhakrasi, Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli had given a tehrir (written complaint) at Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli, wherein it has been alleged that on

13.07.2005, her husband went to Munshiganj from home and he did not return for two days. Thereafter, on 15.07.2005, the complainant went to Munshiganj for enquiring about her husband, where she met her husband Shanker Dutt at a shop/hotel of one Dinesh Singh S/o Rampal Singh. The complainant asked her husband to return to home but he stated that his agricultural land has been sold and the sale deed is to be executed today and after execution of sale deed, he would come to home after receiving the sale consideration, however, he did not come to home on the said evening. Thereafter, the complainant again went to the hotel of Dinesh Singh and enquired about her husband; Shanker Dutt but it was told to her that after execution of sale deed, her husband had gone to his home. The complainant enquired about her husband for 10-12 days but no whereabouts were known. The sale deed was executed in presence of the accused Dinesh Singh. The complainant had given an application at the Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli but no action was taken. The complainant had enquired from one Pappu Awasthi, who is resident of Madhupuri, about the whereabouts of her husband and Pappu Awasthi informed that he had seen the deceased Shanker Dutt sitting at the hotel of accused Dinesh Singh on 15.07.2005 and it was also informed by some persons that Dinesh Singh had given liquor to the Shanker Dutt for 3 A378D No. 150 of 2025 consumption and the amount of sale consideration might have been extracted by him and he might have been killed by the Dinesh Singh for the lust of money.

8. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, the F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.599/2007, under Sections 304 and 406 I.P.C. was lodged at Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli against Dinesh Singh and Ram Naresh and investigation was started. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of several witnesses and preparing site plan, inspecting the place of incident and finding prima facie allegations proved, filed charge sheet against the accused, persons, namely, Dinesh Singh @ Rambodh Singh and Ram Naresh under Sections 304, 404 and 201/34 I.P.C.

9. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions on

19.06.2009 and the learned Sessions Court/Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 304/34, 404/34 and 201 I.P.C. on 22.09.2009.

10. During trial, the accused Ram Naresh died on 12.05.2021, report of which is on record at 172Kha/1, which was proved by the Sub Inspector Jitendra Kumar as C.W.-1. Thus, the case abated against him.

11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced the complainant (wife of the deceased) as P.W.-1, Krishna Dutt Shukla (brother of the deceased) as P.W.-2, Vijay Prakash @ Pappu Awasthi as P.W.-3, Vishnu Dutt (brother of the deceased) as P.W.-4, Dr. S.A. Hussain (who conducted post mortem) as P.W.-5, Vinod Kumar Bajpai as P.W.-6, Sangita Saxena (writer of inquest report) as P.W.-7, Investigating Officer Daya Shanker Mishra as P.W.-8 and Amrish Kumar Singh (transcriber of Chik F.I.R.) as P.W.-9.

12. The prosecution also filed and proved documentary evidences i.e. written tehrir as Ek Ka-1, Post Mortem report as Ex. Ka-2, Inquest Report as Ex. Ka-3, Site Plan as Ex. Ka-4, Charge Sheet as Ex. Ka-5, G.D. entry regarding adding of Section 404 and 201 I.P.C. as Ex. Ka-6, Chik F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-7 and Original G.D. Entry as Ex. Ka-8. 4 A378D No. 150 of 2025

13. After completion of evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that F.I.R. and Charge Sheet filed against him are false and the police has got the report lodged on account of enmity because he was owner of a dhaba, which is located at National Highway, Lucknow-Allahabad Road and the police used to eat food there and on being asked for payment of the same, they used to threaten. He also stated that neither he had given liquor to the deceased for drinking nor he had taken money and he had also not sent the injured Shanker Dutt to hospital and Vimla, who is wife of the deceased, has not enquired from him. He also stated that the charge sheet was filed after making wrong investigation on account of aforesaid enmity.

14. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence and material on record, framed the following five points for determination:- "1- क्या (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत मामले म(cid:517) वािदनी मुकदमा के मृतक पित शंकरद(cid:485) की मृ(cid:277)यु कािरत होते समय घटना का कोई (cid:352)(cid:277)य(cid:87)दश(cid:515) सा(cid:87)ी सािबत होता है? 2- क्या दो वष(cid:259) िवल(cid:286)ब से दज(cid:259) (cid:352)थम सूचना िरपोट(cid:259) को िवल(cid:286)ब से दज(cid:259) िकये जाने के युि(cid:472)यु(cid:472) कारण को अिभयोजन (cid:497)ारा सािबत िकया गया है ? 3- क्या पिरि(cid:293)थितज(cid:281)य सा(cid:296)य से वािदनी मुकदमा के मृतक पित शंकरद(cid:485) की मृ(cid:277)यु कािरत करने वाले (cid:498)ि(cid:472) की पहचान युि(cid:472)यु(cid:472) संदेह से परे सािबत होती है ? 4- क्या अिभयोजन यह युि(cid:472)यु(cid:472) संदेह से परे सािबत करने म(cid:517) सफल (cid:631)आ है िक अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह अिभयु(cid:472) राम नरेश (दौरान िवचारण मृ(cid:277)यु) की सहायता से िदनांक 15.07.2005 को शारीिरक चोट प(cid:631)ंचा कर वािदनी मुकदमा के मृतक पित शंकरद(cid:485) की मृ(cid:277)यु कािरत कर दी ? 5- क्या अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह उफ(cid:259) रामबोध िसह संदेह का लाभ (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त करने का अिधकारी है ?"

15. The learned trial court has recorded that none of the witness is an eye witness to the incident. The P.W.-1 i.e. the complainant is wife of the deceased, who has disclosed the source of information about the death of her husband from P.W.-3 : Pappu Awasthi, who has been declared hostile. The P.W.-3 has stated that he has neither seen the accused killing the 5 A378D No. 150 of 2025 deceased, Shanker Dutt nor he has heard about it from anybody. P.W.-2, Krishna Dutt, who is younger brother of the deceased has stated in his cross-examination that he has neither seen anybody killing his brother nor taking him to the hospital. He has also admitted that he alongwith wife of the deceased i.e. P.W.-1 was not present in the Sub Registrar's office at the time of execution of the sale deed. P.W.-4 : Vishnu Dutt, who is also younger brother of the deceased has been declared hostile. He has stated that he does not know anything about the incident because he was residing in a separate house at the time of incident. P.W.-6 has also admitted in his evidence that he has neither seen the incident nor he has any information about the incident and it has also not been informed to him by any of the eye witness. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he came to know about the incident of death of Shanker Dutt Shukla after about one and half months of his death. P.W.-8, who is Investigating Officer of the aforesaid crime, has stated in his evidence that none of the eye witness had told him that the deceased was killed by which weapon and, therefore, no weapon of crime is recovered. Thus, the learned trial court has recorded a finding that there is no direct evidence, from which it may have been proved that after execution of the agreement to sale, the deceased would have came to the dhaba of the accused Dinesh Singh alongwith him from Sub Registrar Officer, where he would have killed him.

16. The learned trial court has also recorded a finding that Suresh Kumar Singh has been shown as an eye witness and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded but he has not been produced in evidence in the trial, whereas he was shown as witness in the charge sheet. Similarly, Lakshmi Shukla @ Lakshu, who was working in dhaba of the accused Dinesh Singh, was interrogated during investigation and made a witness in the charge sheet but has not been produced during trial. The Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan of alleged place of incident in presence of Suresh Kumar Singh and Lakshmi Shukla, therefore, they have been the best witnesses to prove the site plan but since they have not been produced in the evidence, therefore, the same could not be proved. It was alleged that the accused has dashed head of the deceased, Shanker Dutt Shukla by pillar of bricks, on account of 6 A378D No. 150 of 2025 which he suffered serious injuries and he had called Dr. Mohd. Salim Siddiqui for his treatment but the said doctor has also not been produced in the evidence. It was also argued on behalf of the prosecution that on the advice of Dr. Mohd. Salim Siddiqui, a jeep was called and the deceased was sent to the hospital with the help of Tribhuwan Singh @ Bhauji S/o Jagdish Singh, who has been made a witness in the charge sheet but he has also not been examined during trial. Though the names of aforesaid four persons, namely, Suresh Kumar Singh, Lakshmi Shukla, Dr. Mohd. Salim Siddiqui and Tribhuwan Singh has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. but arguments were made in regard to them but since they have not been examined during trial, therefore, their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not admissible. Thus, there was no eye witness to the incident.

17. It has also been recorded by the learned trial court that paper No.8Ka/3 shows that the deceased Shanker Dutt was taken to the District Hospital Raebareli by Ram Naresh Yadav S/o Ram Milan Yadav but he has also not been produced in evidence. The learned trial court on the basis of evidence of P.W.-7 : Sangeeta Saxena i.e. writer of inquest report of the deceased as unknown and P.W.-5 : Dr. S.A. Siddiqui, who conducted post mortem of the deceased, has recorded a finding that Ram Naresh Yadav has brought the deceased Shanker Dutt in the District Hospital Raebareli on 15.07.2005 at 07:20 in the evening as an unknown deceased, whose inquest and the post mortem was done on 16.07.2005 as an unknown. P.W.-1 has stated in her evidence that she came to know about the death of her husband, Shanker Dutt after eight days of his post mortem from brother of the deceased, who appeared as P.W.-2. The brother of the deceased, who appeared as P.W.-2, has stated in his evidence that he came to know about the dead body of his brother from the doctor of the District Hospital on 16.07.2005, therefore, there is serious contradictions in evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in regard to the information of the alleged murder of the deceased. If P.W.-2 had come to know about the death of his brother on 16.07.2005 then why he had not told to the wife of the deceased i.e. P.W.-1 and reported the matter. P.W.- 1 also stated that after 2-3 days of the date when her husband had gone for execution of the sale deed, she had went to police station and got the application written after giving ten rupees to an old lady but neither such 7 A378D No. 150 of 2025 application was placed on record nor it was proved. She also stated that a missing report of her husband was published in a newspaper and as per finding recorded by the learned trial court, it is after five months of the death of the deceased but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 20.07.2007 on an application moved on the same date. Thus, the learned trial court has recorded a categorical finding that there is delay of one and half years in lodging of the F.I.R. and no proper explanation of the same has been given.

18. The learned trial court after considering the evidence and material on record has recording a finding that there is contradiction in the evidence of the complainant in regard to going of her husband from house as she has stated in the F.I.R. that her husband had gone to Munshiganj on

13.07.2005 but in the evidence before the learned trial court, she stated that Dinesh Singh had brought her husband from house on his motor cycle one day before and when her husband did not return home then on the next day, he went to hotel of Dinesh Singh. Thus, her evidence in this regard is contradictory.

19. The learned trial court after considering the evidence and material on record has come to the following conclusion:- "उपरो(cid:472) िव(cid:501)ेषण के आधार पर िन(cid:292)कष(cid:259)तः (cid:281)यायालय का यह मत है िक (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत मामले म(cid:517) कोई (cid:352)(cid:277)य(cid:87) सा(cid:87)ी (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत नह(cid:514) िकये गये ह(cid:520) तथा (cid:352)थम सूचना िरपोट(cid:259) मृ(cid:277)यु की ितिथ 15.07.2005 से दो वष(cid:259) एक माह पांच िदन िवल(cid:286)ब से िदनांक 20.08.2007 को िलखवाई गयी है और िवल(cid:286)ब का उिचत कारण सािबत नह(cid:514) िकया जा सका है। प(cid:347)ावली पर ऐसा कोई पिरि(cid:293)थितज(cid:281)य सा(cid:296)य भी उपल(cid:284)ध नह(cid:514) है िजसकी सहायता से यह िन(cid:292)कष(cid:259) िनकाला जा सके िक अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह ने वािदनी मुकदमा के पित शंकरद(cid:485) की ह(cid:277)या की हो। अतः अिभयोजन युि(cid:472)यु(cid:472) संदेह से परे यह सािबत करने म(cid:517) सफल नह(cid:514) (cid:631)आ है िक अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह िदनांक 15.07.2005 को अपने ढाबे के भीतर मृतक शंकरद(cid:485) को घायल करके उसने मृ(cid:277)यु कािरत कर दी तथा उसे ले जाकर िजला अ(cid:293)पताल म(cid:517) अ(cid:88)ात नाम से भत(cid:515) करवा िदया। अतः अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह संदेह का लाभ (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त करते (cid:631)ए दोषमु(cid:472) िकये जाने यो(cid:264)य है।"

20. The learned trial court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence and material on record, recorded the aforesaid findings and acquitted the respondent from the charges of 8 A378D No. 150 of 2025 Section 304, 404 and 201 I.P.C., hence this appeal has been filed.

21. 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 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. 9 A378D No. 150 of 2025 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."

22. 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 10 A378D No. 150 of 2025 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.

23. 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 been passed in accordance with law after considering the evidence and material on record by the learned trial court and nothing has been pointed out by the learned A.G.A., 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 is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. October 30, 2025 Saurabh (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the learned trial court.

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 available on record. He further submits that the prosecution has proved it's case beyond doubt but the learned trial court failed to consider the same and acquitted the respondent/accused after giving weightage to the minor discrepancies in investigation and the contradiction in the prosecution evidence, which could not have been done, therefore, the leave to appeal may be granted and the appeal may be heard and decided on merit.

7. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant; Vimla W/o deceased Shanker Dutt R/o Village Jhakrasi, Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli had given a tehrir (written complaint) at Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli, wherein it has been alleged that on

13.07.2005, her husband went to Munshiganj from home and he did not return for two days. Thereafter, on 15.07.2005, the complainant went to Munshiganj for enquiring about her husband, where she met her husband Shanker Dutt at a shop/hotel of one Dinesh Singh S/o Rampal Singh. The complainant asked her husband to return to home but he stated that his agricultural land has been sold and the sale deed is to be executed today and after execution of sale deed, he would come to home after receiving the sale consideration, however, he did not come to home on the said evening. Thereafter, the complainant again went to the hotel of Dinesh Singh and enquired about her husband; Shanker Dutt but it was told to her that after execution of sale deed, her husband had gone to his home. The complainant enquired about her husband for 10-12 days but no whereabouts were known. The sale deed was executed in presence of the accused Dinesh Singh. The complainant had given an application at the Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli but no action was taken. The complainant had enquired from one Pappu Awasthi, who is resident of Madhupuri, about the whereabouts of her husband and Pappu Awasthi informed that he had seen the deceased Shanker Dutt sitting at the hotel of accused Dinesh Singh on 15.07.2005 and it was also informed by some persons that Dinesh Singh had given liquor to the Shanker Dutt for 3 A378D No. 150 of 2025 consumption and the amount of sale consideration might have been extracted by him and he might have been killed by the Dinesh Singh for the lust of money.

8. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, the F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.599/2007, under Sections 304 and 406 I.P.C. was lodged at Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli against Dinesh Singh and Ram Naresh and investigation was started. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of several witnesses and preparing site plan, inspecting the place of incident and finding prima facie allegations proved, filed charge sheet against the accused, persons, namely, Dinesh Singh @ Rambodh Singh and Ram Naresh under Sections 304, 404 and 201/34 I.P.C.

9. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions on

19.06.2009 and the learned Sessions Court/Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 304/34, 404/34 and 201 I.P.C. on 22.09.2009.

10. During trial, the accused Ram Naresh died on 12.05.2021, report of which is on record at 172Kha/1, which was proved by the Sub Inspector Jitendra Kumar as C.W.-1. Thus, the case abated against him.

11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced the complainant (wife of the deceased) as P.W.-1, Krishna Dutt Shukla (brother of the deceased) as P.W.-2, Vijay Prakash @ Pappu Awasthi as P.W.-3, Vishnu Dutt (brother of the deceased) as P.W.-4, Dr. S.A. Hussain (who conducted post mortem) as P.W.-5, Vinod Kumar Bajpai as P.W.-6, Sangita Saxena (writer of inquest report) as P.W.-7, Investigating Officer Daya Shanker Mishra as P.W.-8 and Amrish Kumar Singh (transcriber of Chik F.I.R.) as P.W.-9.

12. The prosecution also filed and proved documentary evidences i.e. written tehrir as Ek Ka-1, Post Mortem report as Ex. Ka-2, Inquest Report as Ex. Ka-3, Site Plan as Ex. Ka-4, Charge Sheet as Ex. Ka-5, G.D. entry regarding adding of Section 404 and 201 I.P.C. as Ex. Ka-6, Chik F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-7 and Original G.D. Entry as Ex. Ka-8. 4 A378D No. 150 of 2025

13. After completion of evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that F.I.R. and Charge Sheet filed against him are false and the police has got the report lodged on account of enmity because he was owner of a dhaba, which is located at National Highway, Lucknow-Allahabad Road and the police used to eat food there and on being asked for payment of the same, they used to threaten. He also stated that neither he had given liquor to the deceased for drinking nor he had taken money and he had also not sent the injured Shanker Dutt to hospital and Vimla, who is wife of the deceased, has not enquired from him. He also stated that the charge sheet was filed after making wrong investigation on account of aforesaid enmity.

14. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence and material on record, framed the following five points for determination:- "1- क्या (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत मामले म(cid:517) वािदनी मुकदमा के मृतक पित शंकरद(cid:485) की मृ(cid:277)यु कािरत होते समय घटना का कोई (cid:352)(cid:277)य(cid:87)दश(cid:515) सा(cid:87)ी सािबत होता है? 2- क्या दो वष(cid:259) िवल(cid:286)ब से दज(cid:259) (cid:352)थम सूचना िरपोट(cid:259) को िवल(cid:286)ब से दज(cid:259) िकये जाने के युि(cid:472)यु(cid:472) कारण को अिभयोजन (cid:497)ारा सािबत िकया गया है ? 3- क्या पिरि(cid:293)थितज(cid:281)य सा(cid:296)य से वािदनी मुकदमा के मृतक पित शंकरद(cid:485) की मृ(cid:277)यु कािरत करने वाले (cid:498)ि(cid:472) की पहचान युि(cid:472)यु(cid:472) संदेह से परे सािबत होती है ? 4- क्या अिभयोजन यह युि(cid:472)यु(cid:472) संदेह से परे सािबत करने म(cid:517) सफल (cid:631)आ है िक अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह अिभयु(cid:472) राम नरेश (दौरान िवचारण मृ(cid:277)यु) की सहायता से िदनांक 15.07.2005 को शारीिरक चोट प(cid:631)ंचा कर वािदनी मुकदमा के मृतक पित शंकरद(cid:485) की मृ(cid:277)यु कािरत कर दी ? 5- क्या अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह उफ(cid:259) रामबोध िसह संदेह का लाभ (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त करने का अिधकारी है ?"

15. The learned trial court has recorded that none of the witness is an eye witness to the incident. The P.W.-1 i.e. the complainant is wife of the deceased, who has disclosed the source of information about the death of her husband from P.W.-3 : Pappu Awasthi, who has been declared hostile. The P.W.-3 has stated that he has neither seen the accused killing the 5 A378D No. 150 of 2025 deceased, Shanker Dutt nor he has heard about it from anybody. P.W.-2, Krishna Dutt, who is younger brother of the deceased has stated in his cross-examination that he has neither seen anybody killing his brother nor taking him to the hospital. He has also admitted that he alongwith wife of the deceased i.e. P.W.-1 was not present in the Sub Registrar's office at the time of execution of the sale deed. P.W.-4 : Vishnu Dutt, who is also younger brother of the deceased has been declared hostile. He has stated that he does not know anything about the incident because he was residing in a separate house at the time of incident. P.W.-6 has also admitted in his evidence that he has neither seen the incident nor he has any information about the incident and it has also not been informed to him by any of the eye witness. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he came to know about the incident of death of Shanker Dutt Shukla after about one and half months of his death. P.W.-8, who is Investigating Officer of the aforesaid crime, has stated in his evidence that none of the eye witness had told him that the deceased was killed by which weapon and, therefore, no weapon of crime is recovered. Thus, the learned trial court has recorded a finding that there is no direct evidence, from which it may have been proved that after execution of the agreement to sale, the deceased would have came to the dhaba of the accused Dinesh Singh alongwith him from Sub Registrar Officer, where he would have killed him.

16. The learned trial court has also recorded a finding that Suresh Kumar Singh has been shown as an eye witness and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded but he has not been produced in evidence in the trial, whereas he was shown as witness in the charge sheet. Similarly, Lakshmi Shukla @ Lakshu, who was working in dhaba of the accused Dinesh Singh, was interrogated during investigation and made a witness in the charge sheet but has not been produced during trial. The Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan of alleged place of incident in presence of Suresh Kumar Singh and Lakshmi Shukla, therefore, they have been the best witnesses to prove the site plan but since they have not been produced in the evidence, therefore, the same could not be proved. It was alleged that the accused has dashed head of the deceased, Shanker Dutt Shukla by pillar of bricks, on account of 6 A378D No. 150 of 2025 which he suffered serious injuries and he had called Dr. Mohd. Salim Siddiqui for his treatment but the said doctor has also not been produced in the evidence. It was also argued on behalf of the prosecution that on the advice of Dr. Mohd. Salim Siddiqui, a jeep was called and the deceased was sent to the hospital with the help of Tribhuwan Singh @ Bhauji S/o Jagdish Singh, who has been made a witness in the charge sheet but he has also not been examined during trial. Though the names of aforesaid four persons, namely, Suresh Kumar Singh, Lakshmi Shukla, Dr. Mohd. Salim Siddiqui and Tribhuwan Singh has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. but arguments were made in regard to them but since they have not been examined during trial, therefore, their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not admissible. Thus, there was no eye witness to the incident.

17. It has also been recorded by the learned trial court that paper No.8Ka/3 shows that the deceased Shanker Dutt was taken to the District Hospital Raebareli by Ram Naresh Yadav S/o Ram Milan Yadav but he has also not been produced in evidence. The learned trial court on the basis of evidence of P.W.-7 : Sangeeta Saxena i.e. writer of inquest report of the deceased as unknown and P.W.-5 : Dr. S.A. Siddiqui, who conducted post mortem of the deceased, has recorded a finding that Ram Naresh Yadav has brought the deceased Shanker Dutt in the District Hospital Raebareli on 15.07.2005 at 07:20 in the evening as an unknown deceased, whose inquest and the post mortem was done on 16.07.2005 as an unknown. P.W.-1 has stated in her evidence that she came to know about the death of her husband, Shanker Dutt after eight days of his post mortem from brother of the deceased, who appeared as P.W.-2. The brother of the deceased, who appeared as P.W.-2, has stated in his evidence that he came to know about the dead body of his brother from the doctor of the District Hospital on 16.07.2005, therefore, there is serious contradictions in evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in regard to the information of the alleged murder of the deceased. If P.W.-2 had come to know about the death of his brother on 16.07.2005 then why he had not told to the wife of the deceased i.e. P.W.-1 and reported the matter. P.W.- 1 also stated that after 2-3 days of the date when her husband had gone for execution of the sale deed, she had went to police station and got the application written after giving ten rupees to an old lady but neither such 7 A378D No. 150 of 2025 application was placed on record nor it was proved. She also stated that a missing report of her husband was published in a newspaper and as per finding recorded by the learned trial court, it is after five months of the death of the deceased but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 20.07.2007 on an application moved on the same date. Thus, the learned trial court has recorded a categorical finding that there is delay of one and half years in lodging of the F.I.R. and no proper explanation of the same has been given.

18. The learned trial court after considering the evidence and material on record has recording a finding that there is contradiction in the evidence of the complainant in regard to going of her husband from house as she has stated in the F.I.R. that her husband had gone to Munshiganj on

13.07.2005 but in the evidence before the learned trial court, she stated that Dinesh Singh had brought her husband from house on his motor cycle one day before and when her husband did not return home then on the next day, he went to hotel of Dinesh Singh. Thus, her evidence in this regard is contradictory.

19. The learned trial court after considering the evidence and material on record has come to the following conclusion:- "उपरो(cid:472) िव(cid:501)ेषण के आधार पर िन(cid:292)कष(cid:259)तः (cid:281)यायालय का यह मत है िक (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत मामले म(cid:517) कोई (cid:352)(cid:277)य(cid:87) सा(cid:87)ी (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत नह(cid:514) िकये गये ह(cid:520) तथा (cid:352)थम सूचना िरपोट(cid:259) मृ(cid:277)यु की ितिथ 15.07.2005 से दो वष(cid:259) एक माह पांच िदन िवल(cid:286)ब से िदनांक 20.08.2007 को िलखवाई गयी है और िवल(cid:286)ब का उिचत कारण सािबत नह(cid:514) िकया जा सका है। प(cid:347)ावली पर ऐसा कोई पिरि(cid:293)थितज(cid:281)य सा(cid:296)य भी उपल(cid:284)ध नह(cid:514) है िजसकी सहायता से यह िन(cid:292)कष(cid:259) िनकाला जा सके िक अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह ने वािदनी मुकदमा के पित शंकरद(cid:485) की ह(cid:277)या की हो। अतः अिभयोजन युि(cid:472)यु(cid:472) संदेह से परे यह सािबत करने म(cid:517) सफल नह(cid:514) (cid:631)आ है िक अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह िदनांक 15.07.2005 को अपने ढाबे के भीतर मृतक शंकरद(cid:485) को घायल करके उसने मृ(cid:277)यु कािरत कर दी तथा उसे ले जाकर िजला अ(cid:293)पताल म(cid:517) अ(cid:88)ात नाम से भत(cid:515) करवा िदया। अतः अिभयु(cid:472) िदनेश िसह संदेह का लाभ (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त करते (cid:631)ए दोषमु(cid:472) िकये जाने यो(cid:264)य है।"

20. The learned trial court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence and material on record, recorded the aforesaid findings and acquitted the respondent from the charges of 8 A378D No. 150 of 2025 Section 304, 404 and 201 I.P.C., hence this appeal has been filed.

21. 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 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. 9 A378D No. 150 of 2025 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."

22. 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 10 A378D No. 150 of 2025 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.

23. 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 been passed in accordance with law after considering the evidence and material on record by the learned trial court and nothing has been pointed out by the learned A.G.A., 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 is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. October 30, 2025 Saurabh (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench