Prosecution Case ‘Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ & Not Merely ‘May Be Proved’: Allahabad HC Reiterates Principles Governing Scope Of Reversal Of Acquittal In Govt. Appeal

The High Court dismissed a Government Appeal challenging an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in a case of stone pelting and clash involving locals and Police.

On the scope of reversal of acquittal in Govt. Appeal, the Division Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I asserted, “...we may say that the Hon’ble Apex Court in several of its decisions has laid down the principles governing the scope of interference by the High court in an appeal filed by that state for challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.”

Government Advocate represented the Appellant while Advocate Man Mohan Mishra represented the Respondent.

The Allahabad High Court was considering a Government Appeal filed by the State of U.P. along with an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge arising out of criminal case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 353, 324, 504, 506, 342, 336 IPC and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act whereby the accused-opposite parties No. 1 to 6 had been acquitted.

The incident in question is of the year 2008 when the Police Officers received the information that the public had apprehended one person and were beating him. After reaching at the spot, the Officers asked the crowd not to beat the apprehended man, Nikki, who was later brought to the Police Station. Thereafter, the accused persons along with 40-50 unknown persons blocked the Highway and started assaulting the police personnel with illegal arms. When the additional force reached there, the crowd disbursed from the place of incident, pelting stones. In the said pelting of stones, Sub Inspector, Constables and Home Guard received injuries, who were taken for medical treatment. On the basis of said incident, the first information report was lodged.

The accused-opposite parties, claiming themselves to be businessmen, contended that they had raised their voice against illegal act and conduct by the police personnel and as such they had been falsely implicated by concocting a false case. The victim Nikki, a washerman engaged by the police personnel, had unraveled the truth against the police personnel and in the backdrop of the said circumstance, the accused persons had been falsely implicated.

After going through the testimonies of the witnesses, the Bench found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the factum as to how the injuries were caused to the victim and who in fact, caused the said injuries. It was noted that the genesis of the prosecution as stated in the FIR had not been proved and the star witness Nikki had not supported the prosecution story at all, which creates a serious dent in the prosecution story and makes it wholly unreliable and not worth credence.

The Bench further stated, “...we find that S.I. Arun Kant Singh (P.W.-1), who is the first informant of the case and alleged to be present at the time of incident, has not been examined and has been deliberately withheld, which creates a serious dent in the prosecution story. Even in the statement of P.W.-1, there are serious contradictions and inconsistencies in his cross examination, which renders the prosecution story wholly unreliable.”

As per the Bench, the Trial Court had elaborately dealt with oral and documentary evidence on record and reached the right conclusion and committed no mistake in recording the acquittal of the accused persons. The impugned judgment was based on the theory that the prosecution case ‘must be proved beyond reasonable doubts’ and not merely ‘may be proved’ which is a trite law and we concur on the same.

The Bench further held, “Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-

• That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
• That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
• That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record

Finding the Trial Court’s Order to be just, proper and legal, the Bench dismissed the Government appeal.

Cause Title: State of U.P. vs Bholu Qureshi And 5 Ors [Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:175223-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Government Advocate

Respondent: Advocate Man Mohan Mishra

Click here toread/download Order