Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Smt. Vibha on 6 February, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17332-DB
Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 147 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Smt. Vibha
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. Nil of 2019
1. Heard Mr. G.N. Kanojia, learned A.G.A.-I for the appellant and perused the record.
2. The above noted government appeal is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 07.04.2018 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Session Trial No. 756 of 2011 (State Versus Smt. Vibha), arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2010, under sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffarnagar.
3. The prosecution story is that the informant Ram Gopal given a written complaint to Police Station Mansoorpur on 26.03.2010 alleging that his nephew Gaurav Kumar aged about 15 years was sleeping well tonight and his mother and younger sister were sleeping beside him. At 5 a.m. his mother woke up and saw that Gaurav was not on the cot lying nearby. When she went inside the room, Gaurav was found hanging on a hook and his legs were tied from bottom to top, there was a noose around his neck. He was found wearing his younger sister's clothes and it appeared that he was brutally murdered.
4. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person at Police Station- Mansoorpur, District- Muzaffar Nagar, being Case Crime No. 119 of 2010, under Sections- 302 I.P.C.
5. The case was registered and investigation was done by the Investigating Officer of the rank of S.O. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused respondent before the Court of C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar and thereafter learned Magistrate took cognizance upon the said Charge sheet on 09.08.2011 and committed the matter to Court of Session, Muzaffar Nagar on 11.03.2013.
6. Thereafter, accused appeared before the Court on 04.01.2012 and charge was framed against her under Section 302 I.P.C. to which the accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
7. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 10 witnesses in the form of PW-1, Informant/Complainant, Ramgopal; PW-2, Ishwar Singh; PW-3, Smt. Bala; PW-4, Manoj; PW-5, Dr. Karan Singh; PW-6, Rakesh Kumar; PW-7, S.I. Deviram; PW-8, I.O. Bachan Singh Tebatiya; PW-9, Constable clerk Yogendra Singh and PW-10, S.O. Satyaveer Singh.
8. Trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.
10. The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment acquitting an accused on the principle that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by such a judgment. The above principle has been consistently followed by the Constitutional Court while deciding appeals against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution or appeals filed under Section 378 and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. in State of M.P. Vs. Sharad Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by re-appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below:
"Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from 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.
13. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under:
"25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the 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 other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."
15. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held 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.
16. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
17. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we will examine the trial court's findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order.
18. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of record, this court finds that there was no mark of injury on the body of deceased which proved that he was brutally murdered. There was no injury mark on the body of the deceased showing that he was hanged on a hook. No credible evidence was produced by the prosecution against the accused on the basis of which the charge framed against the accused could have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Despite being given repeated opportunities by the prosecution, the younger sister of the deceased was not examined, who was said by the prosecution to have slept near the deceased in the night of the incident. The younger sister of the deceased could have been the best witness of the incident in this case. In post mortem report no cause of death was ascertained hence viscera was preserved. The accused mother of the deceased was not named in the F.I.R. During investigation, the mother of the deceased was made accused on the allegation of administering poison. The prosecution failed to prove whether the poison organochloro insecticide is slow poison or instant poison sufficient to cause death. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The witness deposed contrary to the version of the F.I.R.
19. The judgment of the trial court is well considered and learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court.
20. Leave to appeal application is rejected.
Order on Government Appeal No. 147 of 2023
In view of the fact that leave to appeal application has been rejected. The government appeal is dismissed.
Let Trial Court's record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court within two weeks.
Order Date :- 6.2.2025
K.K. Maurya
