Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Mahesh And Others on 28 May, 2025

Author: Rajiv Gupta

Bench: Rajiv Gupta





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Reserved on 21.03.2025
 
Delivered on 28.05.2025
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90925-DB
 
Court No.- 46
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 126 of 1986
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Mahesh And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.,Mahesh Chand
 
Counsel for Respondent :- , , ,Syed Irfan Ali
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

1. Heard Sri A.N. Mulla, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the State, Sri Ajit Kumar, assisted by Sri Irfan Ali, learned counsels for the surviving accused-respondents and perused the records.

2. The present Government Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.1985 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 261 of 1984 with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal and convict them according to law.

3. Out of six accused persons, four accused respondents i.e. respondent No. 3-Roshan, respondent No. 4-Ghanshyam, respondent No. 5 Harprasad and respondent No. 6-Sohan Lal have died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal on their behalf has already been ordered to be abated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.10.2021 and 17.07.2023. Hence, this Court proceeds to hear the appeal with respect to surviving accused/respondent No. 1 Mahesh, aged about 72 years and respondent No. 2 Chandra Pal, aged about 75 years.

INTRODUCTORY FACTS

4. The prosecution story in brief, is that the first informant Chhidda Singh gave a written Tehrir scribed by Suresh Pal Singh alleging that on 19.04.1984 at 2:00 pm the first informant and his sons Hoti Singh, Tikam Singh, Virendra Singh, Narayan Singh and daughter Laxmi were on their way back to their home after harvesting their crops and when they reached near the house of Chandan, all the accused, namely, Chandra Pal, Nahar, Mahesh, sons of Roshan, Roshan son of Deepu, Hariprashad, Sohan Lal, Ghanshyam, sons of Mohal Lal armed with Ballam, Bhala, Farsa and Lathi reached at the spot and on account of old enmity as well as due to dispute amongst children over the she buffaloes, started assaulting them with their weapon. Nahar Singh was armed with Ballam, Chandra Pal with Farsa and rest others were armed with Ballam, Farsa and Lathi. Nahar Singh and Chandra Pal assaulted Hoti Singh with Ballam and Farsa, who succumbed to his injuries and died instantaneously. Rest others sustained injuries caused with Ballam, Bhala, Farsa and Lathi. Hearing their hue and cry, several villagers gathered and their relatives Shiv Charan and Ved Beer also reached at the spot and rescued the victims.

5. On the basis of aforesaid Tehrir, a First Information Report was registered at 6:30 P.M. on the same date bearing Case Crime No. 34 of 1984 against seven accused under Sections 147, 148, 324, 302 IPC at P.S.-Pisawa, District-Aligarh.

6. During the course of investigation, the spot inspection was made and on 20.04.1984, all the injured were referred for medico-legal examination. Their injury reports and a post mortem report of the deceased Hoti Singh were collected, statements of the first informant and the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., site plan was prepared and all the seven accused were charge sheeted.

7. After the cognizance was taken, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions vide committal order dated 20.07.1984. The Trial Court framed the charges against Nahar Singh and Chandra Pal, who were armed with lethal weapons under Sections 148, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC and against accused Mahesh, Roshan, Ghanshyam, Hari Prashad and Sohan Lal under Sections 147, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

8. At the commencement of the trial, the accused Nahar Singh was found absconding, therefore, his trial was separated.

9. The prosecution was called upon to adduce the evidence to prove its case and had thus examined nine prosecution witnesses as follows:-

1.

P.W.-1

Chhidda Singh

P.W.-2

Narayan Singh

P.W.-3

Tikam Singh

P.W.-4

Dr. R.K. Gupta (Medical Officer, P.S.-Pisawa)

P.W.-5

Head Constable 96 Rajendra Singh

P.W.-6

Rajpal Singh

P.W.-7

Fateh Singh

P.W.-8

Constable 1080 Radheshyam

P.W.-9

Dr. I.M. Qureshi (Medical Officer, M.S. Hospital, Aligarh

10. P.W.-1, Chhidda Singh, the first informant and father of the deceased was an injured eye-witness. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that after witnessing the incident, he dictated the Tehrir to the scribe Suresh Pal and proved the FIR signed by him as Exhibit Ka-1.

11. P.W.-2 Narayan Singh and P.W.-3 Tikam Singh are the real brothers of the deceased and also the injured eye-witnesses and have supported the prosecution case and deposed that all the injured, namely, Chhidda Singh (P.W.-1), Narayan Singh (P.W.-2), Tikam Singh (P.W.-3) and Km. Laxmi went together to the Police Station on a tractor.

12. P.W.-4 Dr. R.K. Gupta, who was posted at Government Hospital Pisawa, Algarh deposed that during morning hours on 20.4.1984 at around 9:30 A.M., he examined Tikam Singh, aged about 26 years, and found following injuries on his body:-

"(i) Lacerated wound 3-½ cm x ½ cm, deep to scalp on the upper part of the head 16 cm, above the right eye brow. There was no pus in the wound. There was dryness on the wound-blood clots.

(ii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x ½ cm deep into the skin of the head and 3 cm away from injury no. 1 on the left side.

(iii) Lacerated wound 4-½ cm. x 1 cm, into scalp. The deeper injury was 2 cm on the left side of no. 2.

(iv) Bruise 3 cm x 5 cm on curb of back of head injury 4 to 8 cm towards back.

(v) Contusion 5 cm x ½ cm just below the right shoulder which was red in colour and was causing pain.

(vi) Contusion 4 cm x ½ cm on the back right side which was just below injury no. 5. There were symptoms of pain and limited movement of the shoulder bruises 1 cm x ½ cm on inner side of right arm, 5 cm above rest."

He opined that, "X-ray of head was advised for injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and for injury No. 5. X-ray of right shoulder was also advised. Injuries no. 6 and 7 were simple and could have been caused by a blunt instrument. All these injuries were half day to one day old. It is possible that these injuries could have been caused on 19.4.1984 at 2.00 P.M. The medical report was prepared at the time of examination and was written and signed by him and proved it as Exhibit-Ka2."

13. On the same day at around 10.00 A.M., he examined Km. Lakshmi, aged about 16 years, and following injuries were found:

"Scratch measuring 1 cm x ½ cm. at the root of the nose and was red in colour.

He opined that this injury was normal. It is possible that it was caused by a blunt object like stick. It is possible that it was caused at the same time as the injuries caused by Tikam Singh. He proved the injury report as Exhibit-ka3."

14. Again at around 10:30 A.M., he examined Chhidda Singh and found following injuries on his body:-

"Lacerated wound 1-½ cm x ¼ cm which was on the upper side of the head and 9 cm above right injury. The edges of the wound were not clear. There was no pus. Dried blood was visible around the wound.

He opined that this injury was simple and it is possible that it was caused by blunt object like stick. It is possible that the injury may be self inflicted. It was proved as Exhibit-ka4."

15. At around 11.00 A.M., he examined Narayan Singh and found following injuries on his body:

"(i) Lacerated wound 3 cm x ¼ cm x ½ cm deep on top of head 10 cm above left eye brow. Edges of wound were not clear. Dried blood was found around the wound. No pus was found.

(ii) Contusion measuring 4 cm x 2 cm on the front side of left arm 6 cm above the rest."

He opined that "this injury was simple in nature and could have been caused by a blunt object. He proved the injury report as Exhibit-ka-5. It could have been caused at the same time as of other injured. The said witness in his cross-examination deposed that none of the injured sustained injuries with Ballam or Bhala. He could not recollect whether the clothes of the injured were blood-stained or not. He did not take the clothes into his possession. He further stated that, in case, anyone is able to bear the pain then these injuries would be caused."

16. P.W.-5 Head Constable 96 Rajendra Singh, posted as Head Muharir, P.S.-Pisawa deposed that at 6:30 PM, the first informant Chhidda Singh gave a written Tehrir Exhibit Ka-1, on the basis of which the FIR Exhibit-ka6 was registered. He also registered it in the G.D. and extract of which was proved as Exhibit-ka7. He referred the injured along with Chitthi Majrubi for medico-legal examination. He denied that he scribed the FIR Exhibit-ka6 at some other time after the Investigating Officer had returned from the place of occurrence. The injured Km. Lakshmi were not examined as prosecution witnesses.

17. P.W.-6 S.I. Rajpal Singh deposed in his cross-examination that he reached the scene of occurrence at 11 or 12 in the night.

18. P.W.-7 S.I. Fateh Singh stated that he took the statement of Head Muharir Rajendra Singh, P.W.-1 Chhidda Singh, P.W.-2 Narayan Singh. He deposed that he found the blood-stained clothes of the deceased.

19. P.W.-8 Constable 1080 Radheshyam was the witness of inquest and deposed that, after the inquest the dead body was sealed before him and was produced before the doctor for the post mortem.

20. P.W-9 Dr. I.M. Qureshi, prepared the post mortem report of the deceased Hoti Singh and found following ante mortem injuries on his body:-

"(i) Incised wound 2 inch x half inch x chest cavity deep on the left side middle of the chest 3-½ inch medial from left nipple at 9 O' Clock position.

(ii) Lacerated wound 1-½ inch x 1/4 inch x bone deep on right side 3-1/2 inch above right ear. He, in his cross examination, deposed that since injury no. 2 was lacerated wound but the coming out the blood was natural from it. He deposed that injury no. 2 of the deceased was caused by lathi which could not be caused by farsa which is a heavy weapon and could give a incised wound."

21. After the prosecution evidence, all the six accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused in their statement admitted that the deceased Hoti Singh was the son of P.W.-1 complainant/Chhidda Singh and real brother of P.W.-2 Narayan Singh and P.W.-3 Tikam Singh. They contended that they were falsely implicated due to party bandi. They denied that prior to this occurrence Chandra Pal-accused had outraged the modesty of the wife of Narayan Singh P.W.2 which was reported to the police by the deceased Hoti Singh and those cases were still pending in the Court of Magistrate. The accused denied that they were laying pressure at the time of occurrence upon the deceased Hoti Singh to compromise that matter. These accused also denied that on the date of occurrence at about 9.00 A.M., there was a dispute between the son of Tikam Singh (P.W.-3) and daughter of Hari Prasad. The accused in their defence did not produce any ocular evidence and had only filed a copy of Hindustan Samachar.

22. The Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-respondents and has acquitted them of the charges levelled against them.

23. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court, the State has preferred the present appeal challenging the same.

24. Heard Mr. A.N. Mulla, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-appellant and learned counsel for the accused-respondent No. 1-Mukesh and respondent No. 3-Chandrapal and perused the impugned Judgment and Order and the Trial Court record.

25. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has acquitted the accused respondents i.e. Mahesh and Chandrapal, though, there was cogent evidence against them. It was argued by learned A.G.A. that there are injured eyewitnesses of the incident corroborated by the medico-legal report which supports the prosecution case, therefore, the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced by this Court. The Trial Court has committed gross illegality in disbelieving the same to be not in accordance with law and has acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence, the judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside as it suffers from perversity and misleading evidence. The appeal be allowed and the accused-respondents be convicted and sentenced accordingly for the murder of the deceased.

26. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned A.G.A. and has submitted that the findings recorded by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused-respondents does not suffer from any perversity and it is a well considered judgment of the Trial Court and has spelt out the reasons for acquittal. The accused-respondents have been rightly acquitted by the Trial Court.

27. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the Trial Court record. Firstly, it transpires from the records that the witness P.W.-2 Narayan Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that all the injured went to the Police Station on a tractor along with P.W.-1 but on the contrary P.W.-5 Head Constable 96 Rajendra Singh deposed that as per the extract of GD Exhibit-ka7, only two persons came as injured i.e. P.W.-1 Chhidda Singh and P.W.-2 Narayan Singh. According to the said GD Entry, no other injured was examined. This apparent contradiction raises a doubt on the truth of the prosecution case as to what happened to the injury of Km. Lakshmi Singh who was also present on the spot but was not examined before the Court. Thus, the prosecution evidence creates a doubt in its version at the very inception. Simultaneously, the witness P.W.-5 in his examination-in-chief deposed that he had referred all the injured along with the Majrubi Chitthi to PHC Vishawa for medical examination on the date of incident at 6.30 P.M. but surprisingly all the injured, namely, P.W.-1 Chhidda Singh, P.W.-2 Narayan Singh, P.W.-3 Tikam Singh and Km. Lakshmi were examined on the next day between 9 to 11 A.M. which casts a doubt about the time of lodging of the FIR. If the FIR would have been lodged on the same date of incident at 6.30 P.M., there was no reason why the injured would not have been examined at the PHC Vishawa on the same evening which was located in the town itself near the police station. P.W.-5, in his examination-in-chief deposed that the first informant Chhidda Singh came along with the injured in a tractor No. URB-3520 at the police station for lodging of the FIR and the injured could have been referred to the PHC on the same tractor for the medical examination, which also creates a doubt on the prosecution story. Another lacuna which gives an impression about its falsity is that, soon after the registration of the FIR, the investigation was assumed by S.I. Fateh Singh, who went to the place of occurrence along with other police officers as it was a murder case and the dead body was lying in the village. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was only ten kilometres which could be covered by the tractor which was available at the police station and could have reached at the spot within two hours. P.W.-7 S.I. Fateh Singh deposed that he reached the place of occurrence at 9-10 PM along with P.W.- 6 S.I Raj Pal Singh but P.W.-6 S.I. Rajpal Singh deposes in his cross-examination that he reached the place of occurrence at 11-12 at night. Interestingly, there are obvious contradictions in their testimony. It may also be noted that it was only the first informant and the injured who reached the police station on the tractor but the dead body was lying in the village and was not brought to the police station. It was the first and foremost duty of the Investigating Officer to proceed at the place of occurrence at the earliest by any vehicle available to them to conduct the inquest report and perform other formalities. While comparing their testimony, it appears that the police came to the village on the next day. Thus, the FIR appears to have been registered ante time sometimes during the late hours. Due to these reasons, the spot inspection and the inquest were performed on the next day. These circumstances raises question about the sanctity of the FIR and the genuineness of the medical examination reports.

28. As regards the motive of the prosecution story is concerned, it is the admitted case of the accused that an old enmity existed between the parties. The incident took place due to an old enmity and the dispute amongst children for the she Buffalo which occurred on the same day. However, the motive regarding dispute amongst the children for the she Buffalo was not of much prominence which could have resulted in the ghastly act. It appears that the genesis of the episode has been suppressed by the prosecution. It also seems that the injured who were not carried to the police station for their medico-legal examination could have received injuries in an incident which took place amongst the children for the she Buffalo during morning hours at around 9-10 A.M. All the three eye-witnesses in their testimony had not deposed anything about the dispute or litigation between them or reasons for resorting to violence. Only a Judgment in Criminal Case No. 68/1984 (State vs. Chandra Pal) under Section 354 IPC, Police Station Vishawa in which the accused Chandra Pal was convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with the Judgment in appeal of the same case dated 03.07.1985 confirming the conviction was placed on record. From the entire evidence, it is certain that the said judgments were not the bone of contention. Thus, the motive of the occurrence has not been disclosed unleash the violence as alleged in the FIR.

29. It is also to be noted that the occurrence took place during the broad-day light, on the road, in the open, then certainly there would have been other persons of the locality who would have witnessed the incident but no one came forward to support the prosecution story. Thus, there is no doubt in discerning that all the three witnesses produced by the prosecution are highly interested witnesses and have prejudice the evidence.

30. In case, the injured eye-witnesses were present on the spot and had sustained injuries in the occurrence then how their injuries were examined on the next day which also does not inspire confidence.

31. Another major reason which draws our attention is that, Chandan and his inmates who could have been probable witnesses were not produced. The witnesses Shiv Charan and Ramji Lal mentioned in the FIR were also not examined. All the three prosecution witnesses deposed that the Farsa injury was struck in the head and the Ballam injury in the chest of the deceased Hoti Singh, which indicates that Chandra Pal inflicted the Farsa injury on the head of the Hoti Singh. Nahar inflicted Ballam injury in the chest of the deceased.

32. The last point which can be scrutinized is that the witness P.W.-9 Dr. I.M. Qureshi specifically deposed in his cross-examination that since injury No. 2 was a lacerated wound and the blood was oozing, but not a single drop of blood was found at the place where deceased fell down. Besides the deceased, four injured who had received various lacerated wounds, but not a single drop of blood was found anywhere. Their blood stained clothes were also not collected. The witness P.W.-7 S.I. Fateh Singh deposed in his cross-examination that he inspected the place of occurrence at night as well as in the morning but did not find any blood anywhere. The dead body was also not found lying at the spot. However P.Ws.-1, 2 and 3 deposed that they had removed the dead body of Hoti Singh from the place of occurrence to their home and put it on a cot over a mattress and covered with a bed-sheet. Even the place where the dead body was kept at the time of its inspection was also not shown in the site plan. P.W.-3 Tikam Singh deposed that his clothes were blood soaked but was not taken into custody nor did he disclose whether blood fell on the ground or not. Though P.W.-7 in his cross-examination states that he found blood soaked clothes but the prosecution witnesses have denied it.

33. All these instances, scrutinized above, indicate that the occurrence did not take place at the specific date, time, place and manner, rather the place of occurrence is somewhere else and the death of Hoti Singh took place during early hours of the night and nobody saw the perpetrators. There are every chances that due to an old enmity, the accused have been falsely implicated in this case by lodging an FIR which is highly suspicious and ante time.

34. P.W.-9 Dr. I.M. Qureshi, in his testimony deposed that injury No. 2 of the deceased was caused by Lathi and cannot be caused by Farsa which is a heavy weapon and which should have left incised wound. This witness denied in his cross-examination that injury No. 2 could be caused by Farsa. The said witness clarifies that in order to develop a false case, a Farsa injury was included in the FIR under the impression that if it turns out to be another kind of wound, the Farsa could be changed from sharp-edged side to the blunt side as the witnesses deposed that Chandra Pal inflicted Farsa from the blunt side. This improvement made by the witnesses is totally absent under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as the statements of P.Ws.-1, 2 and 3 were recorded before the lodging of the FIR and before proceeding to the place of occurrence and receipt of post mortem report, therefore, it was the most correct and reliable version. It has also been noticed that there was no cuts in the baniyan of the deceased.

35. Thus, the reasons spelt out by the Trial Court regarding acquittal of the accused respondents cannot be said to be perverse one and did not warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeal.

36. The legal position with regard to interference in Appeal against Acquittal has been discussed wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrinal Das and Ors. Vs. State of Tripura, AIR 2011 SC 153 has held that:-

"(6) In State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755, this Court while considering the power of appellate court to interfere in an appeal against acquittal, after adverting to various earlier decisions on this point has concluded as under:-

"16.....while exercising the power in appeal against the order of acquittal the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the view arrived at by the court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with commission of the crime he is charged with."

7) In Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, while considering the similar issue, namely, appeal against acquittal and power of the appellate court to reappreciate, review or reconsider evidence and interfere with the order of acquittal, this Court, reiterated the principles laid down in the above decisions and further held that:-

"42.....The following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." The same principles have been reiterated in several recent decisions of this Court vide State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Jagram and Others, (2009) 17 SCC 405, Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1, Babu vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189, Ganpat vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 59, Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 324, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh and Another, (2011) 4 SCC 786."

It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed."

37. Para-8 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basappa vs. State of Karnataka; II (2014) ACC 1 (SC) has held that:-

"8. The High Court in an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.PC is entitled to reappraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court, but the same is permissible only if the judgment of the trial court is perverse, as held by this Court in Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Secretary[1]. To quote: "14. We have considered the arguments advanced and heard the matter at great length. It is true, as contended by Mr Rao, that interference in an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the trial court should be rare and in exceptional circumstances. It is, however, well settled by now that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court but only in a case when the judgment of the trial court is stated to be perverse. The word "perverse" in terms as understood in law has been defined to mean "against the weight of evidence". We have to see accordingly as to whether the judgment of the trial court which has been found perverse by the High Court was in fact so." (Emphasis supplied)."

38. This Court in para-23 of the case of State of U.P. vs. Moti Lal Srivastava and Ors.; 2016 (94) ACC 817 has followed and considered the dictates and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to scope of interference by the High Court in the case of acquittal which is reproduced hereunder:-

"23. The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Darshan Singh, SCC 2012 (5) 789 has laid down the scope of interference in the appeal against acquittal and held that appellate court interferes with order in acquittal only in compelling circumstances and when the impugned order is found to be perverse, the appellate court should bear in mind presumption of innocence of accused. Interference in a routine manner where another view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."

39. Having considered the totality of the circumstances of the present case and in view of the foregoing discussion, we find that on the appraisal of evidence as discussed by the Trial Court, the judgment of acquittal has been rightly passed. We find no merit in this appeal.

40. The Judgment and Order dated 25.09.1985 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 261 of 1984 is hereby affirmed.

41. This Government Appeal is, accordingly dismissed.

42. The respondent-accused No. 1 Mahesh and respondent-accused No. 2 Chandra Pal were already on bail, hence, their bail bonds are hereby discharged.

43. Office is hereby directed to communicate the judgment and order of this Court to the Trial Court concerned. The Trial Court Record be also sent back and consigned to records.

Order Date :- 28.05.2025

Shivani