State Of U.P. vs Rambeer Bhole
2025 Latest Caselaw 974 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Rambeer Bhole on 14 May, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80452-DB
 
Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 486 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Rambeer Bhole
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

Order on Leave to Appeal Application No..../2018.

1. Heard Sri Prem Shankar, learned AGA-Ist for State and perused the record.

2. The above noted leave to appeal application has been filed praying for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.08.2017 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bulandshahar, in S.T. No. 790/2015.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased, Santosh Sharma, left his house on 22.08.2015 at about 05:00 p.m., but did not returned till the morning, and therefore, his missing report was lodged on the next date on 24.08.2015. A dead body was recovered which was identified as the body of Santosh Sharma. The informant, Sanjeev Sharma, son of the deceased, had lodged the F.I.R., which was registered as case crime no. 211/2015, under section 302/201 against unknown accused on 03.09.2015. During investigation name of respondent, Rambeer Bhole, came to the light and hence he was arrested and charge-sheeted. The respondent denied the charges and sought trial.

4. The prosecution produced the P.W.-1, the informant; P.W.-2, Smt. Premlata Sharma, wife of the deceased; P.W-3, Vidhi Chand Bhardwaj; P.W.-4, Sub-inspector, Vineet Kumar; P.W.-5, Brijesh Kumar Yadav; P.W.-6, Ashish Prakash; P.W.-7, In-charge Inspector, Satyapal Singh; P.W.-8, Lalman and P.W.-9, Vijay Pal son of Thakur Singh.

5. The statement of the respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. The trial court after considering the evidence on record acquitted the accused by the judgment and order dated 05.08.2017 finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was sufficient credible evidence and motive established against respondent for committing the alleged offence. The trial court has committed error in considering the evidence on record and acquitting the respondent. Trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondent.

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. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. The motive of crime set up was dispute regarding money. The P.W.-1, stated that the respondent used to provide money to father of informant, P.w.-1, on interest. P.W.-1 stated that the respondent committed the murder of his father because he was required to return Rs. 1,75,000/- to father of P.W.-1 which he was not willing to return, hence, he committed his murder. Some call details were collected by the investigating officer between the deceased and the applicant, but there was no certificate obtained under section 65-B of the Evidence Act. One brick recovered allegedly on pointing out of the respondent no blood was found. There is no independent witness of the recovery of brick allegedly used in the commission of alleged offence.

17. The trial court has found that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to connect the chain of circumstances which may prove the offence alleged against accused-respondent and has acquitted the accused-respondent.

18. We have not found 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 evidences.

190. This leave to appeal application is rejected.

Order on Government Appeal

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

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

Order Date :- 14.5.2025

Abhishek