State Of Up vs Harkhyal Singh S/O Yashpal Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 5765 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of Up vs Harkhyal Singh S/O Yashpal Singh on 5 March, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35703-DB
 
Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 781 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Harkhyal Singh S/O Yashpal Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The above noted government appeal is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Amroha in Sessions Trial No.419 of 2015 (State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Harkhyal Singh s/o Yashpal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Rajabpur, District- Amroha along with Sessions Trial No.420 of 2015 (State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Harkhyal Singh s/o Yashpal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2015, under Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Rajabpur, District- Amroha.

3. The prosecution story is that deceased Shamim was working with the accused-informant Harkhyal Singh as conductor to his truck and he was shot dead at accused-informant's house. Thereafter, informant Harkhyal Singh lodged an F.I.R. against the unknown person regarding the incident. After some time of the incident, father of the deceased, Irshad (PW-1) had given a typed application at the concerned police station stating therein that on 06.08.2015, accused Harkhyal Singh came to his house and took away his son for conductor work and on 14.08.2015, he received information on phone that his son Shamim was shot dead at Harkhyal's house. Harkhyal did not give him any information regarding death of his son nor he told him about lodging of F.I.R. against unknown person. He further alleges that Harkhyal himself had murdered his son to implicate Satish in the murder case because of old rivalry with Satish.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint and after investigation, the accused-respondent was arrested on 12.09.2015 by the Investigating Officer and the F.I.R. was lodged against the accused Harkhyal Singh being Case Crime No. 152 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC and on the basis of recovery of pistol, another F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 188 of 2015, under Section 25 of Arms Act was lodged against the accused at Police Station- Rajabpur, District- Amroha.

5. The investigation was done by the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, took statements of witnesses and prepared the site plan. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused-respondent, before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, and, thereafter, Magistrate took cognizance upon the said charge sheet and committed the matter to Court of Sessions, Amroha on 17.12.2015.

6. Thereafter, accused-respondent appeared before the Court and charges were framed against him under Sections 302 of I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act 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 9 witnesses namely, PW-1, Irshad, PW-2, Habib Ahmad; PW-3, Satish Kumar; PW-4, Rishiraj; PW-5, H.C.P. 82 Shivnandan Tiwari; PW-6, Dr. Dinesh Khatri; PW-7, Inspector Sanhasarveer Singh; PW-8, Inspector Mahipal Singh Tarar; PW-9, S.I. Rajkumar.

8. After prosecution evidence was completed, the accused was put to question under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the respondent had stated that he was falsely implicated, the witnesses which were produced had given false statements.

9. At the end of the trial, after hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondent.

11. Before we embark on testimony and the judgment of the Trial Court, the principle for interfering in appeal against acquittal would require to be discussed.

12. 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.

13. 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."

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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."

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. We have perused the depositions of prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. This Court finds that the alleged accused/driver has lodged F.I.R. regarding murder of his conductor against some unknown person but after some days during investigation, informant was made accused by the Investigating Officer and charge-sheet has been submitted against him but there was no eye witness account to the alleged incident and there was no motive to the accused-informant to commit murder of his conductor otherwise, he would have disclosed the name of other persons to whom he has enmity and he would have also implicated his enemy in the F.I.R. but in the F.I.R. nobody has been made accused and the unknown accused were implicated. On the basis of suspicion, informant has been made accused to the present case. Prosecution could not prove the recovery which was made on the confessional statement of the alleged accused. Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the acquittal order is justified. In that view of the matter, we are unable to satisfy ourselves with the submission of learned A.G.A. for the appellant-State and we concur with the findings of the Trial Court.

21. The judgment of the trial court is well considered and we do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court.

22. In view of the above, application seeking leave to appeal is rejected.

Order on Government Appeal No. 781 of 2024

In view of the fact that application seeking leave to appeal has been rejected, the government appeal stands dismissed.

Office is directed to return the record of the trial court and also notify this judgment to the trial court within a period of two weeks.

Order Date :- 5.3.2025

K.Tiwari