State Of U.P. vs Krishnadeo @ Jhula And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 22664 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

[AFR]
 
Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2099 of 1984
 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Krishnadeo @ Jhula And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- H.N. Singh,N.N. Singh,Satya Prakash Shukla,Udai Prakash Deo Pandey,V.B. Singh
 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

(Per Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Patanjali Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for respondents perused the record.

2. This appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.4.1984 passed by Sessions Judge, Mirzapur acquitting accused-respondents who have been tried for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') read with Section149 in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1983.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the evidence of Ramakant ( PW-1) brother of the deceased, is that while his brother, Nageshwar Chaubey, was coming from Semariya to Charkonava and had reached near the road culvert, Krishnadeo alias Jhala, accused, who was lying in ambush alongwith other accused on the northern side of the road, fired a shot on Nageshwar Chaubey, which struck him (Nageshwar Chaubey) in his leg. Rama Kant, Vishwanath, Baggar, Ram Subhag, Ram Prasad and Alagudeo alias Raj Narain were accompanying Nageshwar Chaubey at that time, having lathis in their hands. They started running towards west and stationed themselves after crossing the road culvert. As Nageshwar Chaubey had suffered gun shot injury in his leg, he could not run fast. Krishna Deo, Kailash Deo, Harish Chandra Deo and Bachchan, accused, were seen chasing Nageshwar Chaubey firing shots from their guns. The other accused were also giving a chase to Nageshwar Chaubey, who fell down at a distance of about 80 paces from the culvert towards west as a result of the injuries suffered by him. Thereupon, Dukhran accused, hit him with gandasi a sharp cutting weapon, and Budhiram, accused, took out a hand bomb from his jhola and hurled it towards the persons, who had moved ahead and had kept themselves cancelled in the forest. The bomb exploded and produced a loud sound and smoke. Budhiram, accused, then took the rifle of the deceased and thereafter, all the accused fled away in the jungle. Ram Kant and others then came to the place where Nageshwar was lying in pool of blood. It was found that the life had ebbed out as a result of the injuries caused on his person. Long standing enmity is said to be the motive for ending the life of Nageshwar Chaubey .

4. On F.I.R. the investigation was moved into motion. Investigation Officer took up the investigation, visited the spot and prepared the site plan. Investigation Officer collected the blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and live as well as empty cartridge were also recovered. Search memos were prepared. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem where the postmortem was conducted and the postmortem report was prepared by Doctor.

5. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigation Officer. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 379 of IPC. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. Prosecution examined oral witnesses and filed doucmentary evidence. After prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused examined one witness in their defence.

7. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned Judge below has misread the evidence and that the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that First Information Report offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. was committed and that the judgment of the court below is erroneous..

8. Before we embark on testimony and the judgment of the Court below, the contours for interfering in Criminal Appeals where accused has been held to be non guilty would require to be discussed.

9. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of an appeal by this Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of "M.S. NARAYANA MENON @ MANI VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANR", (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:

"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."

10. Further, in the case of "CHANDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA", reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court laid down the following principles;

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

[3] Various expressions, such as,"substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

[4] An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind 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.

[5] 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."

11. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/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.

12. Even in the case of "STATE OF GOA Vs. SANJAY THAKRAN & ANR.", reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision, the Court has observed as under:

"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."

13. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases of "STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM VEER SINGH & ORS.", 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in "GIRJA PRASAD (DEAD) BY L.R.s VS. STATE OF MP", 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled.

14. In the case of "LUNA RAM VS. BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS.", reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10 and 11 has held as under:

"10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition.

11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence."

15. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of "MOOKKIAH AND ANR. VS. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU", reported in AIR 2013 SC 321, the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:

"4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while hoosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573]"

16. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. HEMAREDDY", AIR 1981, SC 1417, wherein it is held as under:

"...This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

17. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in "SHIVASHARANAPPA & ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA", JT 2013 (7) SC 66 has held as under:

"That appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence."

18. Further, in the case of "STATE OF PUNJAB VS. MADAN MOHAN LAL VERMA", (2013) 14 SCC 153, the Apex Court has held as under:

"The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convincing the accused person."

19. The Apex Court recently in Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 7 SCC 219, has laid down the principles for laying down the powers of appellate court in re-appreciating the evidence in a case where the State has preferred an appeal against acquittal, which read as follows:

"10.It is by now well settled that the Appellate Court hearing the appeal filed against the judgment and order of acquittal will not overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if the Appellate Court does not find substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. If the Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's decision was based on erroneous view of law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if the entire approach of the Trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of the ballistic expert etc. the same may be construed as substantial and compelling reasons and the first appellate court may interfere in the order of acquittl. However, if the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Court generally will not interfere with the order of acquittal particularly in the absence of the aforementioned factors.

.........................It is relevant to note the observations of this Court in the case of Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606, which reads thus:

"21.There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not."

20. The Apex Court recently in Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750, has held that the appellate court is reversing the trial court's order of acquittal, it should give proper weight and consideration to the presumption of innocence in favour of accused, and to the principle that such a presumption sands reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court and in Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019) 18 SCC 161 held that judgment of acquittal, where two views are possible, should not be set aside, even if view formed by appellate court may be a more probable one, interference with acquittal can only be justified when it is based on a perverse view.

21. At present, it is submitted by learned AGA that in all, there were eight accused persons. In this case and now out of them, six accused persons have died. Hence, now this appeal survives only with regard to two surviving accused persons, namely, Budhiram and Kamla Lohar. So, we are concerned only with regard to the matter of accused-Budhiram and Kamla Lohar.

22. It is further submitted by learned AGA that on 10.10.1982 at 12:00 noon, all the eight accused persons came on the spot and committed the murder of Nageshwar Chaubey. Accused persons were armed with deadly weapons. It is further submitted that surviving accused, Budhiram took out of bomb from his bag and threw towards the deceased at the time of occurrence which created a lot of noise and smoke after that the accused-Budhiram picked up the rifle of the deceased and fled away. Another surviving accused- Kamla Lohar was armed with Lathi and he also attacked on the deceased.

23. It is next submitted by learned AGA that both the surviving accused persons played active role in the commission of offence but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in right perspective and mainly held that at the time of occurrence, co-accused- Krishnadeo alias Jhala was sitting in the chamber of District Government Counsel for preparation of his another case. The District Government Counsel is examined before the Trial Court and on the basis of the aforesaid plea of alibi, all the accused persons were convicted by Trial Court. While the plea of alibi was taken only in respect of co-accused Krishnadeo alias Jhala, hence, there is inherent error in the impugned judgment, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

24. Learned counsel for the accused- Budhiram and Kamla Lohar submitted that in the antimortem injuries and in the postmortem report, there is no injury of bomb and lathi. It goes to show that Budhiram and Kamla Lohar were not present at the time of occurrence and they were falsely implicated in this case on the basis of village party and enmity.

25. This is the occurrence of the year 1982. Perusal of postmortem report goes to show that there are several ante-mortem of punchered wound which were caused by the pellets of gunshot. Hence, mainly there are injury of gunshot wound and there is no injuries which could be caused either by the throwing of bomb or by lathi danda.

26. Hence, the presence of surviving accused persons is found doubtful by the learned trial court and it is the settled principles of law that if the two views of possible, one favouring to the prosecution and other favouring to the accused, the view favouring to the accused should be adopted.

27. The place of occurrence, the testimony of the witnesses and the ultimate analysis will not permit us to take a different view than that taken by the learned Judge.

28. Hence, in view of the matter & on the contours of the judgment of the Apex Court, we concur with the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal sans merits and is dismissed. The record and proceedings be sent back to the Court below. The bail and bail bonds are cancelled.

Order Date :-23.12.2022/Mukesh