Mata Din Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5409 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mata Din Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25927-DB
 
Court No. - 47
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 708 of 2024
 
Appellant :- Mata Din Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Madhaw Pandey,Meraj Ahmad Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Yadav,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. Heard Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anand Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Sri G. N. Kanaujiya, learned AGA-Ist for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. This appeal has been filed under section 372 Cr.P.C. by the informant-appellant against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2024, passed by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C., Ist(Crime Against Women), Jaunpur, in Session Trial No.176 of 2010(State of U.P. Vs. Dr. Ashutosh Dubey and another), arising out of Case Crime No.1381 of 2009, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, whereby the opposite party no.2 has been acquitted for committing the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, whereas opposite party no.2 has been convicted and sentenced under sections 376, IPC, for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of fine he further undergo 6 months additional simple imprisonment and also convicting and sentencing the opposite party no.2, under section 494 IPC for 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- and default of payment of fine he further undergo 4 months additional simple imprisonment. Both the sentence be run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has illegally acquitted the respondent no.2 of the charges under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, while convicting him under sections 376 and 494 IPC. He has submitted that from the statements of P.W.-1 and 2, it is clear cut case of forgery and cheating, which was fully proved before the trial court, yet the trial court illegally acquitted the respondent no.2 of the charges under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the trial court has recorded clear finding of fact that the appellant failed to prove the commission of offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, by respondent no.2, by leading any evidence in this regard, hence the judgment and order of the trial is justified.

5. The trial court has found that no documentary evidence was filed before it, to prove the allegations made under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, hence the judgment and order of the trial is justified.

6. 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.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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."

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. We find that the counsel for the appellant is unable to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of acquittal of respondent no.2, recorded by the trial court. Hence the above noted appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

15. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 24.2.2025

VKG