Susheel Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors

Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 158 of 2016 Applicant :- Susheel Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Nadeem Murtaza Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J. The case is taken up in the revised call. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the private opposite parties, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. The present leave to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/FTC, Unnao by which the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent Nos.2 to 5 without considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record in Sessions Trial No.205/2013 arising out of Case Crime No.82/2013 under Section 363/366 I.P.C., Police Station-Ganga Ghat, District-Unnao in case of State of U.P. vs. Rajjan Verma and others. As per the prosecution version, the daughter of the complainant was enticed away by the accused persons from the gate of the complainant. On 28.12.2012 at about 6:00-7:00 A.M., the accused persons knocked the door of the complainant, thereafter, the complainant asked his daughter to open the gate, when the daughter of the complainant opened the gate, one of the accused grabbed her with his both hands and sat on a motorcycle and took away the daughter of the complainant, who was a minor girl. Thereafter, the complainant reached the house of one of the accused and told this whole incident to his family members, on which the family members of one of the accused assured the complainant that his daughter will return back home in a while but she did not return. The complainant waited for some time but when his daughter did not return home, the complainant lodged the present FIR against the accused persons. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, passed the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.07.2016. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned Counsel for the opposite parties submit that the learned trial court appreciated the evidence on record. They further submit that prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused on the basis of evidence. The judgment was passed after considering the statement of witnesses and the case set up by the prosecution and the judgment of the acquittal was passed after due consideration of fact and law of the case. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the ground as well as gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court. In the present case from the statements given by the witnesses produced by the prosecution, I found that prosecution has failed to establish that the crime in question has been committed by the accused and there was no direct evidence produced by the prosecution regarding involvement of the respondent No.1 in the crime. Further, learned Counsel for the applicant not point out any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of the private opposite parties which is before this Court. Further, this Court observed that an appeal against acquittal stands on a different footing from the appeal against conviction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 has considered this difference and has observed in paragraph nos.20 and 21 as under: "20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of 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 of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can raise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held: "7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal."

¶21The Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative." In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, the impugned judgment has to be considered from the point of view whether the view taken by the learned trial court was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits. A criminal trial proceeds with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons. With the acquittal of the accused persons this presumption of innocence stands fortified. So very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of acquittal. Keeping in view the aforesaid weakness of the prosecution case, as noted by the learned trial court, I am of the view that the view taken by the learned trial court was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable and not based on material on record or is based on erroneous views and is against the settled position of law. So, this Court is satisfied that there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for. Leave to appeal is refused. Application for leave to appeal is rejected. Accordingly, the appeal does not survive, and in view of above, the appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court for its compliance. Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Piyush/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench