Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Tripathi vs The State Of U.P. And Others on 5 February, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10481
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 349 of 2007
Revisionist :- Mahendra Tripathi
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- L.B.Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Abdul Rafey Siddiqui
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
List has been revised and the case is being taken up in the revised call of the list.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The present revision has been filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order and judgment dated 17.03.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-I), Ambedkar Nagar for enhancement of sentence of opposite parties in Sessions Trial No.26 of 2003, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 308 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar.
The prosecution case in brief is that complainant was beaten by the accused persons in relation to a dispute which occurred while picking Mahua from the floor. On the basis of above report a case was got registered against the accused, and after investigation charge sheet was filed against him. In the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The court below after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, passed the judgment and order of dated 17.03.2007.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the court below did not appreciate the evidence on record. He further submits that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused on the basis of evidence. The judgment was passed without considering the statement of witnesses and the case set up by the prosecution and the judgment of the conviction was passed on surmises and conjectures awarding lesser sentences to the opposite parties.
I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment passed by the court below and finds that the learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of conviction which is before this Court.
Further, this Court observed that an appeal against acquittal stands on a different footing from the appeal against conviction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 has considered this difference and has observed in paragraph nos.20 and 21 as under:
"20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can raise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held:
"7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal."
21. The Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative."
In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, the impugned judgment has to be considered from the point of view whether the view taken by the court below was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits.
A criminal trial proceeds with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons. With the conviction of the accused persons this presumption of innocence stands fortified. So very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of conviction.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the view taken by the court below was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the court below cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable and not based on material on record or is based on erroneous views and is against the settled position of law. So, this Court is satisfied that there is absolutely no hope of success in this revision and accordingly, no interference is called for.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for its compliance.
Order Date :- 5.2.2024
Saurabh
