Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Antram S/O Sansar Singh And 2 ... on 23 December, 2022
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 788 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Antram S/O Sansar Singh And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
This appeal is by the State along with application for grant of leave to challenge the order of acquittal dated 13.09.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4/ Special Judge (E.C. Act), Muzaffar Nagar in Session Trial Nos. 462 of 2006 and 464 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime Nos. 13 of 2006 and 15 of 2006, under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffar Nagar.
The prosecution case is that the deceased was a Chowkidar in the farm of P.W.-4 and his dead body was found in one of the hutment of the farm. It was the first informant and P.W.-4, who apparently saw the dead body at about 11.00 in the night. The accused- Antram was found lying near the dead body. The cause of death is single gun shot injury and two wounds have been noticed in the post mortem report of entry and exit.
During the course of investigation the accused Antram disclosed the complicity of two other persons namely Roshan and Ganga Ram, who were also charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC together with accused Antram.
The trial proceeded in which various witnesses were produced including the first informant P.W.-2. P.W.-4 who is the owner of the farm has also been produced. The two witnesses have stated that they saw the main accused Antram near the dead body at about 11.00 in the night.
The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.
During the course of trial no eyewitness has been produced by the prosecution and this is a case of circumstantial evidence. No motive is assigned to the accused for committing the offence. The only circumstance against the accused is that he was seen lying near the dead body. It has been noticed by the Court below that the main accused Antram was also a Chowkidar in the farm and therefore no exception can be taken to his presence in the premises. Neither any recovery has been made from the accused nor any other evidence has been led for their implication. The Trial Court upon evaluation of evidence led in the matter has therefore come to the conclusion that this is a case of circumstantial evidence in which chain of events have not been connected so as to point to the hypothesis of guilt against the accused. An alternative hypothesis has otherwise not been ruled out. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt has been given to the accused and they have been acquitted.
Although, learned AGA has taken us through the judgment in order to contend that the findings returned by the Court below are perverse and that the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt but no material in support of such contention has been placed before us. It remains undisputed that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and neither any motive is attributed to the accused nor any recovery has been made from them. Mere presence of one of the accused in the premises can not be sufficient material so as to complete the chain of events pointing to the hypothesis of guilt on part of the accused. The view taken by the Court below is clearly a permissible view. Law is otherwise settled that just because a different view is possible on fact the appellate Court would not be justified in reversing the judgment and order of acquittal.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the prayer made on behalf of the State for grant of leave to institute an appeal against the impugned judgment and order.
Consequently, the present government appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2022
SK Srivastava
