Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Ram Bahadur on 4 September, 2025

Author: Sangeeta Chandra

Bench: Sangeeta Chandra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:53084-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 196 of 2001 
 
[Reserved]     
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Ram Bahadur    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Govt.Advoate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Anil Kumar, Parashu Ram Kanaujia, R.R. Dev   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 2
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

{Per Shree Prakash Singh, J.}

Heard Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA for the State-appellant and Sri Parashu Ram Kanaujia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Ram Bahadur.

Leave to appeal has already been granted and the appeal is admitted vide order dated 13th of March, 2001.

The present Government Appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 5th of December, 2000 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kheri, Court no. 7 in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 1991, Case Crime No. 113 of 1984, under Sections 302/34 of IPC, whereby both the accused persons, namely, Ram Bahadur and Amar Singh were acquitted by the learned trial court for all the charges framed against him.

The charges were framed against three accused persons, namely, Ram Bahadur, Munser Ali and Amar Singh. During the course of trial one of the accused, namely, Munser Ali died and, subsequently, the accused-respondents, Amar Singh and Ram Bahadur have been tried and convicted.

During pendency of this appeal, accused-respondent no. 2-Amar Singh has also died and the appeal has been abated for respondent no. 2, Amar Singh. The accused-respondent no. 1, Ram Bahadur is alive.

The prosecution story, as unfurled in the FIR is that on 02.10.1984, the brother of the informant, namely, Kripa Ram was plucking of black gram (Udad) on his agricultural farm, the accused persons, namely, Ram Bahadur, Munser Ali and Amar Singh equipped with Lathi and Kanta proceeded towards the field of the deceased-Kripa Ram to avenge their enmity with him. The accused persons started beating Kripa Ram, brutally with lathi and Kanta, as a result, he suffered severe injuries on his body. The people of nearby area gathered at the place of incident, while the deceased started shouting. Seeing so many people arriving on the spot, the accused persons ran away leaving behind the injured Kripa Ram. It is also alleged that Kripa Ram had once been the witness in favour of one Shiv Ram against the co-accused Ram Bahadur and thus, was annoyed with Kripa Ram and his family members.

On the basis of written report Exhibit Ka-1, the First Information Report Exhibit Ka-2 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Lakhimpur Kheri, District Kheri. The injured Kripa Ram was taken to the hospital for medical examination, wherein following injuries were found:-

?1. A Lacerated wound on skull 5cm x 0.8 cm x scalp deep left side in occipital region 13 cm above the left ear pinna and 14 cm from left eyebrow soft blood clot present, Ady. X-ray skuli A.P. & lat. view.

2. A Lacerated wound 4cm x 0.5cm x bone deep left side skull in occipital region 1.3 cm below the injury no.1 soft blood clot present, Adv. X ray skull.

3. A Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side skull between two above injury Illegible soft blood clot present. Adv. X-ray skull.

4. A Incised wound on Rt. side skull 4cm x 0.4cm x bone deep 18 cm above Rt ear pinna & 12 cm from Rt. eyebrow soft blood clot present adv. x-ray skull.

5. Abrasion on Rt Skull in occipital area 1.2cm x 1.0, 3.5 cm below Injury No.4 oozing present.

6. Abrasion on Skull 1.5cm x 0.4 cm left side occipital region 3.5 cm below the injury No 1.

7. A Lacerated wound on fore head Right side 1.6cm x 0.5 x muscle deep 2 cm above outer angle of Rt. eyebrow.

8. Abraided Contusion on mid of left upper arm 6cm x 1 cm. Reddish in colour, 9.5 cm above left epicondyle. Adv. X-ray left upper arm.

9. Abraided contusion on Rt forearm on dorsal aspect 3 cm x 1 cm lower part 2 cm away from Rt.Wrist

10. A lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle deep on left leg 6 cm below from Lt. knee joint. soft blood-clot.

11. Contusion 4cm x 1.5 cm on left side back reddish in colour. 11cm below the left scalp.

Remark- Nature of injury No 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11 are kept U.O. Injury No. 5, 6, 7 are simple is nature. Injury No. 4 Caused by Sharp edged object. Remaining all injury caused by hard & blunt object, duration about half day.?

The Doctor reported the injuries to be caused with sharp-edged and hard & blunt weapon, which were fresh in nature.

The injury report of the injured (deceased-Kripa Ram) was prepared by Dr. A.B. Singh and after the medical examination of the injured, he was admitted in the hospital but due to severe injuries inflicted on the body of the injured, he died on 14th of October, 1984 at about 08:30 a.m.

The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. V.K. Agarwal on 14th of October, 1984 and the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:

?1. Partially healed wound on left side of scalp 3 cm x 0.2 cm x Subcutaneous tissue 9 cm above Left Ear.

2. Partially healed wound 1 cm away from Injury No (1) 3 cm x 0.3 cm x Subcutaneous tissue.

3. Septic wound on left leg front, 6 cm below the left knee 1.2 cm x 0.8 cm x muscle deep

4. Scabbed abrasion on Left Arm 3 cm x 0.5 cm after removing the hard scab 2 cm x 0.8 cm present. 9.5 cm above Elbow fracture of shaft of Humerus Dissection.

5. Contusion yellowish in colour on the Right forearm, 2 cm above the right wrist 2 cm x 0.8 cm on Dissection. Fracture of both bones under neath present.

6. Contusion yellowish in colour on side and back of left chest 10 cm x 8 cm.

7. Scabbed Abrasion on right side forehead 2 cm above the Right Eyebrow After removal of scab 1.2 cm x 0.3 cm Illegible present.?

After the registration of the case, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and prepared the Site Plan Exhibit Ka-6 and after completion of investigation, the chargesheet was also submitted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused-respondents. As the case was exclusively tried by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions which came to be registered as Sessions Trial No. 304 of 1991. Thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri framed the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused-respondents, Ram Bahadur and Amar Singh which were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not to be guilty and claimed to be tried.

To bring the guilt home of the accused-respodnents, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 prosecution witnesses. The informant, Darbari Lal S/o Ram Bharosey was examined as PW-1 who has proved the written report Exhibit Ka-1, Shiv Pal S/o Mewa Lal was examined as PW-2. Incharge Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Gaurifanta, District Kheri, namely, Dr. V.K. Agarwal was examined as PW-3, who has proved the postmortem report, numbered as Exhibit Ka-2. Tulsi Ram S/o Prabhu was examined as P|W-4 (who was declared hostile) and finally Dr. A.B. Singh was examined as PW-5 who examined the injured/deceased on 02.10.1984 at 8:30 p.m. and has proved the injury report prepared by him as Exhibit Ka-3.

After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused-respondents have stated the prosecution case to be false and claimed themselves to be innocent and also stated to have been falsely implicated. Further, the defence is taken that because of party-bandi in the village election with Sita Ram, the informant was misled by Sita Ram who is the scribe of the FIR and the same resulted in mentioning the names of the accused-respondents in the FIR.

It is apparent from the record that no evidence in defence was adduced by the accused-respondents.

The learned trial court after appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case, recorded the finding of acquittal of the accused-respondents, as aforesaid, on the basis of evidence available before it. The learned trial court has held that as per the statement of PW-1, one of the eye witness Shiv Pal was irrigating his land with private pumping set, as the Government Tube-well was not functional, whereas PW-2 Shiv Pal, who has stated himself to be an eye witness, has stated that he was irrigating his land with Government Tube-well. Further that PW-1, Darbari Lal assigned the weapon Lathi to the accused-Ram Bahadur, whereas the eye witness, Shiv Pal PW-2 has stated that Munser Ali was having Lathi, Amar Singh was having Kanta and Ram Bahadur had no weapon in his hand, which, prima facie, creates reasonable doubts regarding testimony of prosecution witness.

The abovesaid doubts were considered by the learned trial court and it has acquitted the accused-respondents, hence the State, being aggrieved, has filed the instant Government Appeal.

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-appellant has vehemently argued that the impugned judgment and order dated 05th of December, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri is erroneous and unlawful and further added that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its correct perspective and consequently, it has recorded the finding of acquittal, thus, the same is faulty. He has also submitted that the prosecution case is proved beyond the reasonable doubt in view of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has further submitted that the finding, to the effect that the prosecution story as well as the prosecution case is not believable, are based on surmises and conjectures, which is also unsustainable.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has argued that the findings of the trial court are passed properly and carefully relying on the evidences available on record. Hence, no interference with the same is warranted by this Court in exercise of its powers. He has further submitted that Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Jagannath Markad And Others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [(2016) 10 SCC 537] and in the case of Raja And Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [(2016) 10 SCC 506] has categorically held that the appellate Court should deal with the reasons for acquittal and interference is warranted, only if the acquittal is perverse. He added that if the appellate court reverses the judgment of the trial court, the reasoning of the trial court has to be adverted to and the reversal of acquittal is permissible only if the view of the trial court is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse.

In the light of the aforesaid, we now examine the evidence. Admittedly, there are two witnesses of fact, namely, Darbari Lal, the informant and PW-2, Shiv Pal, and, their testimony needs to be examined scrupulously before it could form the basis of interference in the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court.

In a criminal trial, it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which matters. According to Section 134 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. Thus, morality of evidences in a criminal trial is not the legislative intent. Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Sudeep Kumar Sen Vs. State of West Bengal reported in [2016 (3) SCC 26] and Prithipal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in [2012 (1) SCC 10] has held that even testimony of sole witness if reliable on the touchstone of credibility could form the basis of conviction.

Upon the survey of statement of PW-1 Darbari Lal, we noticed that PW-2 Shiv Pal was irrigating his field with pumping set as the Government Tube-well was not functional, whereas PW-2 Shiv Pal, in his statement has stated that he was irrigating his land with the Government Tube-well which creates material doubt in the statement of PW-1 Darbari Lal, the witness of fact. Further, PW-1, Darbari Lal in his statement, assigned Lathi to the accused-respondent, Ram Bahadur, on the contrary, PW-2, Shiv Pal, the eye witness, has stated that there was no weapon in the hand of the accused-respondent , Ram Bahadur.

A strong doubt in the statement of PW-1, Darbari Lal is also apparent, as in several places in his statement before the learned trial court, he stated that when Kripa Ram, the deceased was taken to his residence, he was speaking with difficulty and he did not tell the name of the accused persons involved in beating him and in the same breath, he stated that he had asked the name of the accused persons during that period of time. Further, from the statement of PW-1 it is also apparent that the statement of the deceased was not recorded before the Magistrate and the report was not registered until 9:00 p.m. The Chik FIR, which was lodged at 8:10 p.m. also creates substantial doubt which has also been considered by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment.

So far as the statement of PW-2, alleged eye witness is concerned, is disputed is qualified with the statement of PW-1, Darbari Lal. The presence of PW-2, Shiv Pal at the place of occurrence is also questionable and this fact is considered by the learned trial court.

We have also noticed that the blood soaked soil was not collected by the Investigating Officer. Further, the parts of ?black gram? and ?Gamchha? have also not been recovered by the Investigating Officer. The contents of the FIR is also disputed by PW-1 as he stated before the trial court that he had attributed specific role at the time of lodging of the FIR and the accused-respondent, Ram Bahadur was assigned the role of having ?Lathi? but the Investigating Officer has not noted it in the Chik FIR.

It is also noticed by us from the statement of the doctor that the ribs of the deceased were found fractured, though the weapon assigned to the accused persons would not leave such of injury. Further, the Investigating Officer did not collect the samples of blood soaked soil and regular soil from the site of incident and the blood stained clothes and ?Gamchha? of the deceased alongwith parts of the black gram (Udad), he is stated to have been harvesting at the time of incident, were not collected by the Investigating Officer. It is also not understandable that why PW-1 ,Darbari Lal did not make any attempt to save the life of the deceased and he has also not sustained any injury, hence, his presence seems to be doubtful at the spot.

We have also considered that as per the statement of PW-1, Darbari Lal, the deceased-Kripa Ram was examined by the doctor and his statement under section 161 of CrPC was also recorded but no such statement has ever been produced by the prosecution. Further, PW-1 also stated that apart from PW-2, Shiv Pal, there were other persons present at the place of occurrence but they were never produced, whereas in order to lend support to the prosecution story and to elicit the truth, those persons, who were present at the place of occurrence, should have been produced and got examined by the prosecution. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that any threats were ever extended by the accused-respondents to the deceased.

We are also conscious to the legal position as settled by Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in [2017 (1) SCC 529] and paragraph nos. 24, 25, 26 read as under:

?24.We have duly appreciated the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties on both sides. No doubt, the High Court was dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the trial court which had acquitted the appellants herein. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However, this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal against the acquittal, is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible.

25. The scope of interference by the appellate court in an order of acquittal is beautifully summed up in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1961) 3 SCR 120 : AIR 1961 SC 715 :(1961) 1 Cri LJ 766] in the following words:(AIR pp. 719-20, para 9)

?9. The foregoing discussion yields the following results : (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup case [Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42 : (1933-34) 61 IA 398] afford a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) ?substantial and compelling reasons?, (ii) ?good and sufficiently cogent reasons?, and (iii) ?strong reasons? are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified.?

26. This legal position is reiterated in Govindaraju v. State [Govindaraju v. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 533] and the following passage therefrom needs to be extracted : (SCC p. 732, paras 12-13)

?12. The legislature in its wisdom, unlike an appeal by an accused in the case of conviction, introduced the concept of leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 CrPC. This is an indication that appeal from acquittal is placed on a somewhat different footing than a normal appeal. But once leave is granted, then there is hardly any difference between a normal appeal and an appeal against acquittal. The concept of leave to appeal under Section 378 CrPC has been introduced as an additional stage between the order of acquittal and consideration of the judgment by the appellate court on merits as in the case of a regular appeal. Sub-section (3) of Section 378 clearly provides that no appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. This legislative intent of attaching a definite value to the judgment of acquittal cannot be ignored by the courts.

13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. A benefit that has accrued to an accused by the judgment of acquittal can be taken away and he can be convicted on appeal, only when the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law. Upon examination of the evidence before it, the appellate court should be fully convinced that the findings returned by the trial court are really erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law.??

Again, Hon?ble the Supreme Court in the recent judgment reported in (2024) 3 SCC 554, Mallappa and another Vs. State of Karnataka, has held in paragraph no. 26 ,as follows :

?26. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to reappreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the trial court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the trial court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the trial court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity.?

-

In view of the foregoing discussion and law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh (supra) and Mallappa and others (supra), we are of the considered view that the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and contains cogent and convincing reasons. The learned trial court has taken a reasonable and a plausible view which is not perverse. We do not find any substantial and compelling reason to interfere in the finding of acquittal of the accused-respondents.