Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shanu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 September, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth, Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Criminal Appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. - 1229 of 2022
Mohd. Shanu
..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma, Anil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 47
HONBLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HONBLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
(Per: Honble Siddharth,J.)
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
2. The above noted criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.6.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Sessions Trial No.765 of 2018 in Case Crime No.878 of 2018, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar by means of which the court below has passed judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused person/opposite party no.2 under Section 302 IPC.
3. The present prosecution case has been started by registering of first information report (Ext Ka 10) at P.S- Surajpur, Gautam Buddh Nagar on 06.09.2018 at 21:43 Hrs against the accused Farhan S/o Farman R/o Lane in front of Quasba Chowki, Gautam Buddh Nagar by the father of deceased Sahil, the informant Abdul Rahman. The written information containing the thumb impression of the informant Abdul Rahman (P.W.1) S/o Nathu Khan, R/o Lane in front of Police Chauki, Surajpur, Gautam Buddh Nagar got written by his son Mohammad Shanu (P.W.2). The contents of written information is such that the informant is R/o Quasba Chowki, Surajpur, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Не has three sons, his youngest son Sahil who was having friendship with Suhana daughter of Farman, which annoyed accused Farhan, brother of Suhana. On 01.09.2018 Sahil has told the informant that Farhan has called him. On the same day on 01.09.2018 about at 8:15 P.M Salman (P.W.4) S/o Achchan R/o of village Banghel, P.S- Phase-II, Noida has seen Sahil along with Farhan, the accused and on the next day the dead body of Sahil was found on the road near Court. There were injuries on the body of Sahil hence the informant has reported that Farhan has killed his son Sahil.
4. The accused was charge sheeted and summoned for trial under Section 302 IPC vide S.T. No.765 of 2018. He denied the charges and sought trial.
5. The prosecution has produced seven witnesses, out of whom there were three witnesses of fact and four formal witnesses:-
Witnesses of fact:-
1. PW-1 Abdul Rehman, father of deceased Sahil, first informant and witness of inquest;
2 PW-2 Mohd. Shanu, brother of deceased Sahil, scribe of written information and witness of inquest;
PW-4 Salman, friend of Janu son of Abdul Rahman (Janu was discharged from being witness in the case), a last seen witness (though refused) and the witness of inquest;
Formal witnesses:-
4. PW-3 SI Lokesh Kumar Chahal, who has conducted inquest on the dead body of Sahil;
5. PW-5 Dr. Anurag Yadav, the doctor who has conducted post mortem;
6. PW-6 Inspector Munish Pratap Singh, the investigating officer;
7. PW-7 Constable 254 Puneet Kumar, the witness who has entered chik FIR and G.D.
6. Documentary evidence were lead and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial court but the trial court has not considered the same and has recorded finding of acquittal in favour of respondent no.2 which deserves to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondent no.2.
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. PW-4 Salman has stated on oath that he is friend of Mohammad Janu brother of deceased Sahil due to which he usually visits the house of Mohammad Janu and hence knew deceased Sahil. He stated to be the driver in the Uber Company and on 01.09.2018 at about 08:00 08:30 PM he was driving the vehicle from Knowledge Park to Pari Chowk with the customers in the vehicle and when he alighted the passengers at Goal Chakkar he has seen Sahil who was all alone. He asked him about well being, on which Sahil has stated that he is going for some urgent work and left towards the Court and he then returned home. The next date morning, he got a call at 07:30 AM from Janu, who has informed him that Sahil was murdered and from his residence he reached to the police station, from police station, he along with Janu and his other family members reached to the spot where the dead body of Sahil was lying near the drain at Gate No. 2 of the Court at Surajpur. He found injuries on the neck and back of the head of the dead body of Sahil. He further stated that Darogaji has nominated him as witness of inquest along with other relatives of deceased Sahil and he has put his signatures on the inquest report. He has verified his signatures on the inquest report. Lastly, he stated that the police had sealed the dead body of Sahil and sent it for postmortem.
18. PW-5 Dr. Anurag Yadav has stated that on 2.9.2018 he was posted as Medical Officer in District Mortuary for conducting postmortem. On that day the sealed death body of deceased Sahil aged about 18 years, male, son of Abdul Rahman Rio of Bedha P.S.Konch, District Jalaun was received with specimen seal brought by constable Ramdhan Singh and home guard Brijpal. He checked the specimen seal which he found correct and at 01:30 PM he has started the postmortem. He found that rigor mortis was present in the complete body of the deceased, his eyes were closed and congested. He observed in the postmortem report as follows:-
Anti-mortem injuries:-
1. Traumatic swelling 10 x 8 cm, 4 cm above from left eyebrow on the head.
2. Abraded contusion 3 X 0.5 cm on knee of right leg.
3. Abraded contusion 1.5 x 0.5 cm on both inner side of mucosa of upper lip and lower lip and tongue between the teeth.
4. Abraded contusion 10 x 5 cm just above left elbow.
Internal Injuries:-
Brain part has hematoma and membrane congested. Tracheae congested and hematoma present below the tracheae: both lungs congested; right chamber of the heart was full and left chamber was empty; stomach contained 100 ML of semi-digested food; small intestine, large intestine, gallbladder, spleen and both the kidneys were congested, Urinary bladder was half empty. He stated that deceased died half day before his postmortem due to ante mortem injures on person of deceased as he was in coma. He further stated that the ante mortem injuries are sufficient for the cause of death. He further stated that he has prepared the post mortem report in his own hand writing and signed by him which he was proved as Ext Ka 7. Lastly, he has stated that one T shirt, one Pant, one Underwear, one Belt, a pair of shoes taken out from the dead body were sealed and handed over to the constable who brought the dead body.
19. We find that PW-4 has last seen the deceased on 1.9.2018 at about 8-8:30 PM and Sahil informed him that he is going for some urgent work. He saw Sahil alone and not with the sister of respondent no.2, Farhan. The prosecution case was that on the fateful day the deceased was seen with the respondent no.2, Farhan and on the next day his dead body was recovered. The motive of crime alleged was that the deceased Sahil was having friendship with Suhana, daughter of Farman, which annoyed Farman. Therefore, the evidence of last seen based on the testimony of PW-4 was rightly disbelieved by the trial court.
20. From the perusal of the ante-mortem injuries of the deceased it appears that out of 4 injuries only injury no.1, traumatic swelling 10x8 cm, 4cm above from left eyebrow on the head, proved fatal for the deceased. Injury no.3 is abraded contusion 1.5 x 0.5 cm on both inner side of mucosa of upper lip and lower lip and tongue between the teeth. In case injury no.1 was caused on the head of the injured from the front how he suffered injury no.3 on his upper lip, lower lip and tongue has not been explained. The doctor (PW-5) in his statement before the court has not ruled out the possibility of suffering such injury by the deceased because of falling. The trial court has considered the evidence on record and has found that the prosecution has entirely failed to establish the motive of the crime and also the evidence of last seen before the court and has acquitted respondent no.2 of charge under section 302 IPC correctly.
21. 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 A.G.A. so as to warrant interference.
22. Thus, the appeal has no prima facie merits, therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
23. Let the trial court record be returned by the office within a period of one week alongwith a copy of this judgment.
(Santosh Rai,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
September 12, 2025
RA
