State Of U.P. vs Nafzal S/O Kishwar Shah
2025 Latest Caselaw 7016 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Nafzal S/O Kishwar Shah on 20 May, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84154-DB
 
Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 319 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Nafzal S/O Kishwar Shah
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.

Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. of 2022

1. Heard Smt. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-1st for the State-appellant and perused the material on record.

2. The above noted leave to appeal application has been filed praying for grant of leave to the appellant to prefer appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 24.2.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, District Badaun, in Sessions Case No. 504 of 2011 (State Vs. Nafzal)

3. By the aforesaid judgement and order, the accused-respondent has been acquitted of all charges under Sections 272 and 273 IPC, which was registered as Case Crime No. 929 of 2010 at Police Station Ushait, District Badaun.

4. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant of the case namely R.V. Singh, Chief Food Inspector has given a written report stating therein that a drive to put a check on the adulterated milk was made and on 20.08.2010. He alongwith his other companions reached Kasba Ushait and at the Bus Stand received information from the informer that one Nafzal, resident of behind Jama Masjid, used to do the work of preparing synthetic milk and used to sell the same from his house and if a prompt action is taken, he may apprehended. Believing the aforesaid information, complainant alongwith police party proceeded tried to search independent public witness, but just to avoid enmity none were ready for the same. Police party reached the house of accused-respondent and saw that he was mixing something like milk in a plastic tub and other materials were also lying there and on seeing the police party he tried to flee away. On enquiry the accused-respondent begged pardon and confessed that he prepares adulterated milk and sells the same in the market and he also used to supply such milk to the Milkmen. From the spot in a Drum liquid Glucose of blue color weighing two quintal. In a plastic bag 10 packets of Fortune brand Refined oil, of which one packet was opened, one Kg. Caustic, Ezee liquid (detergent) etc. were recovered. At the time of search and seizure all the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Human Right Commission were duly complied with and the first information report of the present case was registered. After lodging of the First Information Report the Investigating Officer investigated the case and charge sheet was submitted against the accused respondent to face trial and the case was committed to the court of Sessions.

5. Trial court framed charges against the respondent which he denied and sought trial.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1, Ram Bahadur Singh, complainant; PW-2, Nadir Ali; PW-3, Rajvir Singh; PW-4, H.C. Jagvir Singh; PW-5, Gaya Prasad Pathak, retired Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer) and PW-6, H.C.P., Ajay Singh.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has acquitted the accused- respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused-respondent are entitled for acquittal.

8. 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.

9. 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."

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. We find that the trial court has found that for sustaining conviction under Sections 272 and 273 IPC, prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that food substance was noxious. Merely because of adulteration in the sample. it does not becomes noxious for consumption by human being. The trial court has relied upon the judgement in the case of Satya Narayan Umar Vs. State of U.P. 2015 (2) JIC 145 in this regard.

17. After considering the evidence 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.

18. This leave to appeal application is rejected.

Order on Government Appeal

Since leave to appeal application is rejected, therefore, the above noted government appeal is, hereby, dismissed.

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

Order Date :- 20.5.2025

Ruchi Agrahari

(Madan Pal Singh,J.) (Siddharth, J.)