Ramchandra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 632 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ramchandra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 May, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72499-DB
 
Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 17 of 2025
 

 
Appellant :- Ramchandra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Mani Upadhyay,Sarvjeet Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raman Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

1. Heard Sri Sarvjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1; Sri Raman Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5; and perused the material placed on record.

2. The above noted criminal appeal U/S 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the informant-appellant praying for setting aside the judgement and order dated 07.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court-I, District Basti in Session Trial no.800 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Paltan and others) arising out of Case Crime no.133 of 2019, under Section 302 read with 34 and 201 I.P.C, Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti, whereby trial court has acquitted the accused, namely, Paltan, Ramnaresh, Ashok and Vijay/opposite party nos.2 to 5.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the informant, Ramchandra, made a report dated 14.8.2019 before the police station alleging that on 13.8.2019 at about 4:30 a.m. he was present on his tubewell alongwith his nephew, Anil Kumar. His nephew went inside the sugar cane crop field in the neighbourhood to ease himself, but he did not return. His search was launched, but in vain. Today, i.e., 14.8.2019 again search of his nephew was made alongwith co-villagers and his underwear was found in the sugar cane field having some blood stained thereon. On proceeding further, nude dead body of the deceased was found floating in a pond. Informantion expressed suspicion against respondents, Paltan and one Rambachan and some others of committing the alleged offence.

4. After investigation, charges-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer under Sections 302/201 IPC and charges were framed against the respondents under Section 302/34, 201 IPC, which was denied by them and they sought trial.

5. Prosecution produced PW-1, Ramchandra, the informant; PW-2, Prem Chandra; PW-3, Hariram; PW-4, Rameshchandra; PW-5, Dr. S.S. Kanaujia; PW-6, Head Constable, Subhash Chandra; PW-7, In-charge Inspector, Matendra Prasad Chaturvedi; PW-8, Suresh Kumar Yadav, In-charge Court Security, District Bareilly and PW-9, Constable, Rampal Yadav, before the trial court to prove the prosecution case.

6. Statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution case and claimed their false implication in this case on the basis of suspicion.

7. DW-1, Pramod Kumar Chaudhary, was examined before the trial court, who stated that the deceased was of unsound mind and he used to escape from the house without information, but thereafter he was recovered by the family members. He stated that when the dead body of the deceased was recovered, all the respondents were present alongwith 20-25 persons. He further stated that number of tenure holders around pumping set of the informant have also protected their fields by surrounding it by barbed wires and deceased may have suffered injuries from the wires.

8. DW-2 and DW-3 also deposed accordingly.

9. Learned AGA has submitted that trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the judgement and order of the trial court deserves to be set aside and respondents deserve to be convicted and sentenced.

10. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the trial court has recorded the clear finding of fact that there was no motive for the respondent nos.2 to 5 to commit the alleged offence.

11. 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.

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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."

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we have 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.

19. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that his enmity with the respondents regarding land appears to be cause of false implication of the respondents. In the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they have expressed ignorance about the person, who caused the incident. After remaining silent for five months, affidavits were given by witnesses implicating the respondents. The trial court has found that the knife recovered in the field was not sent to FSL. It has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has acquitted the respondent nos.2 to 5 of all charges.

20. We have gone through the judgement of the trial court and the other evidence on record and do not find any reason to defer from the findings recorded by the trial court, which appears to be based on the material on record. This Court does not finds any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court's judgement is a well merited one, this Court need not re-appreciate the evidence.

21. The above noted criminal appeal lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Judgment and order of acquittal of the trial is confirmed.

22. Let the record of the trial court be returned and this judgement to be notified to the trial court, within two week.

Order Date :- 6.5.2025

Ruchi Agrahari

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) (Siddharth, J.)