Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Premchand S/O Meghraj And 03 ... on 22 December, 2022
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 781 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Premchand S/O Meghraj And 03 Othres
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
This appeal is by the State alongwith prayer for grant of leave to assail the judgment of acquittal, dated 12.9.2022, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A. Court, Hapur, in Special Sessions Trial No.85 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Premchand and others), arising out of Case Crime No.364 of 2015; Sessions Trial No.86 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Premchand), arising out of Case Crime No.371 of 2015; Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Kapil Rana), arising out of Case Crime No.372 of 2015; and Sessions Trial No.88 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Harendra), arising out of Case Crime No.373 of 2015, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC & Section 25 and 25/4 of the Arms Act, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the informant gave a report stating that his nephew (deceased), aged about 37 years had gone to the agricultural fields to switch on the tubewell and when the informant arrived at to his field, after sometime, he found that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the fields of one Parmal son of Girdhari Lal. Gunshot injuries were found on the deceased. A first information report was lodged and during investigation name of Premchand, Smt. Urmila, Kapil Rana and Harendra surfaced. A chargesheet ultimately was filed under Section 302, 201, 120-B IPC. A firearm has also been recovered from the accused Premchand and Kapil Rana and chargesheets were filed under Section 25 and 25/4 of the Arms Act also.
During the course of trial the prosecution has adduced several witnesses including the informant and the wife of the deceased Smt. Pankaj (PW-4).
The case set up against the accused was that certain amount had been loaned by the deceased to the accused persons and as per PW-4 about two days prior to incident a demand for return of amount was made and threats were extended by the accused to the deceased then.
This is a case based on circumstantial evidence as none admittedly has seen the occurrence. Motive in such cases acquires significance. Although it is alleged that Rs.10 lacs were given by the deceased as loan but no material in the form of evidence has been placed on record to prove any financial transaction between them. A mobile phone has also been recovered from the spot and it has been alleged that the deceased spoke to the accused but the evidence in that regard has not been accepted for the reason that as per CDR report the location of the accused was not at the place of occurrence.
Upon cumulative assessment of evidence led by the prosecution the court below has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has further been held that chain of events have not been connected by the prosecution, so as to point to the hypothesis of guilt against the accused.
Though various arguments are advanced but learned State Counsel has not been able to show any perversity in the view taken by the court below. Law is otherwise settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under an obligation to demonstrate that the chain of evidence points only to the hypothesis of guilt on part of the accused and that no other hypothesis is available on facts. In the facts of the case the opinion expressed by the court below that such hypothesis pointing exclusively to the complicity of the accused is not proved is based upon appreciation of evidence led on record, wherein no perversity is shown, therefore, we decline the prayer made for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal. It is otherwise the law that if a permissible view is taken by the trial court to acquit the accused, ordinarily the appellate court would not interfere in the matter only because a different view is available.
Government appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.12.2022
Anil
