State of U.P v. Munna Singh and 4 Others

Chief Justice's Court Government Appeal No. 418 of 1991 State of U.P.

---- Appellant Vs

¶1Munna Singh

¶2Dharmendra Singh (since deceased)

¶3Sher Bahadur Singh (since deceased)

¶4Raju Singh (since deceased)

¶5Virendra Singh (since deceased) ---- Respondents For Appellant : Smt. Smiti Sahay, AGA For Respondents : None Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, CJ. Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. Per: Pritinker Diwaker, CJ.

¶1Challenge in the present Government Appeal is to the impugned judgment and order dated 3.05.1991 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 1986 (State Vs. Munna Singh & Others) arising out of Crime No. 409 of 1986, acquitting the respondents of the offences under Sections 148, 302, 149 of IPC.

¶2Brief facts of the case are that on 29.09.1986 at about 05.45 P.M., one Hira Lal was done to death by the accused persons by causing fire arm injury to him. Incident was allegedly witnessed by Dharmendra Kumar (PW-1) and Suman (PW-2). FIR was lodged by complainant, Dharmendra Singh, based on which, offence under Sections 302, 148, 149 of I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons.

¶3While framing charge, the trial judge has framed charge against the accused persons under Sections 148, 302, 149 of IPC.

¶4So as to hold accused respondents guilty, prosecution has examined nine witnesses. Statement of accused respondents were also recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

¶5By the impugned judgement, trial court has acquitted all the accused respondents on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution case and are not reliable, hence the present appeal by the State.

¶6Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has erred in law in acquitting the respondents. She submits that the incident was witnessed by Dharmendra Kumar (PW-1), informant of the case and Suman (PW-2), who have duly supported the prosecution case and minor contradictions in their statement are required to be ignored. She submits that the postmortem report of the deceased also supports the prosecution case.

¶7We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶8During pendency of appeal, the accused Nos. 2 to 5 namely Dharmendra Singh, Sher Bahadur Singh, Raju Singh, Virendra Singh respectively have expired and only accused No. 1 Munna Singh is sole surviving accused, however, his whereabouts are not known to anyone.

¶9It is also important to note here that after acquittal of the respondents, certain documents relating to the case are missing from the concerned court, for which inquiry was also conducted but there is no result.

¶10Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that all the important witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile; there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused persons; the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents holding that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and there is no motive for the accused persons to commit the offence; though there is allegation of causing three gun shot injuries but only two gun shot injuries have been sustained by the deceased thereby making the testimony of witnesses unreliable, we are of the view that the view taken by the trial court is one of the possible and plausible view and it cannot be said to be perverse.

¶11While considering the scope of interference in an appeal or revision against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the matter of State of Karnataka vs. K. Gopalkrishna reported in

(2005) 9 SCC 291, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, observed as under: "In such an appeal the Appellate Court does not lightly disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Court below. If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the Appellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal."

¶12In Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus;- "31.It has been stated and restated that a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reason. There is plethora of case laws on this proposition and we need not burden this judgment by referring to those decisions. Our purpose would be served by referring to one reasoned pronouncement entitled Dhanapal v. State which is the judgment where most of the earlier decisions laying down the aforesaid principle are referred to. In para 37, propositions laid down in an earlier case are taken note of as under: - "37. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, this Court held: ( SCC p. 432 para 42), (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 emphasis 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."

¶32Thereafter, in para 39, the Court curled out five principles and we would like to reproduce the said para hereunder: "39. The following principles emerge from the cases above:

¶1The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

¶2The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court.

¶3The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanor of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

¶4The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

¶5If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

¶13In Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737, the Supreme Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36 and 37 as under : "36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record.

¶36In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: (SCC p.432 para 42) "42....(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." Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram."

¶14Considering the above legal position and the factual aspects of the case, we are of the view that the trial Judge was fully justified in acquitting the accused respondents.

¶15The appeal has no substance and the same is, accordingly, dismissed Date: 17.05.2023 SK (Rajan Roy,J) (Pritinker Diwaker, CJ.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench