Dharamveer vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12014 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dharamveer vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 November, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:196274-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 113 of 2025   
 
   Dharamveer    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Awadh Bihari Pandey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 46
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.  

HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for State perused the trial court record.

2. The criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ii, Etawah, in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 2018 (State Vs. Avdhesh Kumar and others) arising out of case crime no. 147/2018, Under sections 302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station- Saifai, District- Etawah.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2018, the father of the complaint had gone to attend the call of nature towards the vacant field in front of the Safai Railway Station. Complainant went with him on motorcycle and while waiting on road for him , she saw that at about 6 pm, Avdhesh Kumar, Ramveer. Sonu @ Sanjeev and Sukhvir armed with pistol and kanta surrounded his father and warned that they would not spare him, as he keeps care of his daughter. They was assaulted and shot with bullet, due to which, father of complainant collapsed, seeing this when he raised alarm, hearing the noise, his sister and another brother also reached at the place of incident.

4. The FIR No. 147/2018 dated 29.06.2018 at 23:42, u/s 302 IPC against accused Avdhesh Kumar, Ramveer, Sonu and Sukhvir and another FIR No. 159/2018 dated 22.07.2018-at 14:12 pm, u/s 3/25 Arms Act against one accused, Avdhesh, were registered at Police Station Safai, Etawah.

5. Trial Court on 11.12.2018 framed the charges u/s 302/34 in ST No. 280/2018 against accused Avdhesh Kumar, Ramveer and on 09.11.2022 framed charges against Sukhvir & Sonu @ Sanjeev & also the charges were framed on u/s 3/25 Arms Act against accused Avdhesh Kumar.

6. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined P.W.-1, Dharamveer; P.W.-2, Pooja; P.W.-3, Dr. Virendra Singh; P.W.-4, Inspector, Siyaram Gautam; P.W.-5, S.I., Raj Bahadur Singh; P.W.-6, Inspector, Mahesh Veer Singh; P.W.-7, S.I., Vipin Kumar and D.W.-1, Indra Pal.

7. Vide judgment and order, the trial court has convicted co-accused, Avdhesh Kumar and Ramveer, in S.T. No. 280/2018, under section 302/34 IPC but acquitted the respondent nos. 2 and 3, namely, Sanjeev @ Sonu and Sukhveer, of all charges. Hence this appeal.

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

9. 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.

10. 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."

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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."

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17.After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the trial court has considered the role of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and found that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Except the testimony of P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 pre-meeting of mind or related/corroborative circumstances of presence all accused persons at the spot was neither proved nor find any corroboration by any other evidence produced before court during trial. Keeping in view the ongoing enmity between the families of deceased, Lakhan Singh and accused, Ranveer, the dragging of close relatives is possible in the case of murder. Accused, Sukhvir and Sanjeev @ Sonu are residents of other places and no overt act of assault has been assigned them by prosecution against deceased. They are relatives and there is no evidence on record that they were equally interested in the property in dispute or for the sake of property they ever harassed or fought with deceased motive does not links them with offence. By the aid of section 34 no liability extends to accused Sukhvir and accused Sanjeev. The presence of accused Avdhesh and Ranaveer has been corroborated by other circumstances in addition oral testimony. The involvement of accused, Sanjeev @ Sonu, shown by prosecution alleging that he came together with the accused persons on motorcycle. He waited for the co-accused on started motorcycle. After shooting dead the deceased, Lakhan Singh, he took accused, Avdhesh, on his motorcycle towards Nagla Achhelal Underpass. This sequence of events has not been corroborated by any other independent evidence. The accused, Sanjeev @Sonu, was summoned u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial together with other accused.

18. The accused, Sonu, is the son-in-law of accused, Ramveer. The prosecution has not established that accused, Sonu or his wife Alkesh, were claiming any right on share in the property of her father. The police during the investigation was not able to collect the evidence against them any no charge-sheet was filed against accused in Sessions Trial Case No.-200/2018 & 281/2018 (State Vs. Avdhesh Kumar & Des, Sanjeev @ Sonu). The involvement of accused without any independent corroboration by any other evidence does not inspired confidence of trial court. There was no proof of motorcycle and other circumstances like previous conduct etc., of accused which may lead towards the conclusion that the manner of committing the offence was reliable. Due to the deficiency of evidence the involvement of accused, Sonu @ Sanjeev, was not found established by the trial court. The involvement of Sukhvir shown by prosecution is similar to the accused Sanjeev @Sonu. The role of Sukhvir shown by prosecution is that he came together with the co-accused on motorcycle. He waited for the co-accused on started motorcycle. After shooting dead the deceased, Lakhan Singh, he took accused, Ramveer, on his motorcycle towards Nagla Achhelal Underpass. These facts have not been corroborated by any independent evidence. The accused, Sukhvir, was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C., to face the trial together with other accused, Sanjeev @ Sonu. The police during the investigation was not able to collect the evidence against them and no charge-sheet was filed against accused, Sukhvir. In fact, Sukhvir is the father-in-law of Avdhesh. Being a social person and relative of the family, PW-2 stated that he attended the panchayat assembled for property settlement between the family members. There is no corroboration from any other evidence regarding the involvement of accused, Sukhvir. No link is established by prosecution between accused, Sukhvir, and the offence.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out 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.

20. Thus, we have perused the record in the light of arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and substantive material/evidence available on the record, we are of the considered view that the grounds raised by the appellant are purely factual and do not warrant a re-evaluation of evidence in this appeal against acquittal. We find that the trial court has meticulously examined the evidence and recorded cogent reasons for acquittal. No perversity or material illegality is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA so as to warrant interference.

21. Thus, the appeal has no prima facie merits, therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

22. This criminal appeal is Dismissed.

(Achal Sachdev,J.) (Siddharth,J.)

November 3, 2025

Abhishek