Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Gyan Singh And Another on 4 April, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47491-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 23 of 2024 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Gyan Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Order on Leave to Appeal Application No.NIL of 2024
1. Heard Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned AGA for the State-appellant and perused the record.
2. The above noted leave to appeal application under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Agra, vide order dated 30.09.2023, in Sessions Trial No.2218 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Gyan Singh and another), arising out of Case Crime No.232 of 2020, under Section 302, IPC, Police Station Fatehabad, District Agra, whereby the respondents, namely, Gyan Singh and Mamta, have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, IPC.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.08.2020 complainant of the case, namely, Ajeet, had given a written report at concerned Police Station, stating therein that his uncle, Atar Singh, lives with his wife, Mamta and children in Sri Krishna Ka Pura, Police Station Fatehabad, District Agra. The accused respondent namely Gyan Singh son of Lalaram, resident of Aamka Pura, Police Station Rajakheda, Dhaulpur used to come his house. Attar Singh's wife, Mamta and accused-respondent, Gyan Singh, had illicit relation between them. His uncle, Atar Singh, used to oppose it. On the night of 21.08.2020, Mamta and Gyan Singh murdered his uncle namely, Atar Singh, together and to mislead declared it as a case of suicide. On inquiry, it was found that Bhikam Singh and Sultan Singh had seen the accused-respondent, Gyan Singh, leaving their house in the night of 21.08.2020. The complainant was certain that his uncle was murdered by Gyan Singh and his aunty, Mamta, together. On the basis of the aforesaid information the first information report of the present case was registered in which the investigating officer after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet.
4. The accused-respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as P.W.-1 complainant Ajeet Singh, P.W.-2 Sultan Singh, P,.W.-3 Bheekam Singh, P.W.-4 Dayaram, P.W.-5 Bobby, P.W.-6 Sub Inspector Vipin Singh, P.W.-7 Dr. Udai Pratap Singh, P.W.-8 Shivani, P.W.-9 Inspector Pradeep Kumar.
6. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused-respondents are entitled for acquittal.
7. Learned counsel for the State-appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed patent legal error in acquitting the respondents of all charges. Even the motive of the crime and also the evidence of last seen was clearly established before the trial court. He further submits that the death of the deceased was caused by way of throttling and, therefore, keeping in view the motive assigned to the respondents, they were liable to be convicted and sentenced, but the trial court has acquitted them of all charges illegally.
8. 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.
9. 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."
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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."
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. After hearing the submissions of learned AGA for the State-appellant and going through the record, we find that the motive of crime was set-up by P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, stating that the respondents were having illicit relationship, which was not liked by the deceased-Atar Singh, who was uncle of the informant. Respondent no.2-Mamta, is the wife of deceased. We also find that there is no evidence on record to the effect that any of the witnesses have seen the incident being caused by the respondents. The dead body of the deceased was found inside the room locked from inside, hanging from the ceiling fan. Evidence has been led before the trial court. In the statements of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 it is stated that the door of the room wherein the dead body of the deceased-Atar Singh, was recovered was locked from inside. It was broken by axe blows and, thereafter, the room locked from inside was opened and the dead body of the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling fan.
16. The doctor was examined as P.W.-7 before the trial court. In his statement P.W.-7 stated that there was partial fracture on the right side of hide-bone of deceased. He was not cross-examined clearly, as to whether the death of deceased was caused by throttling or by hanging, when doctor stated in the postmortem report that the cause of death of deceased was throttling. In his cross examination he admitted that fracture of hide-bone can also be caused in the case of hanging. Therefore, this Court finds that the evidence of P.W.-7, the doctor, does not fulfilled the purpose of an expert opinion. The opinion of expert is primarily to assist the court in arriving at a final conclusion. Such report is not binding upon the court. If eye witness account and other prosecution evidences are trustworthy and have given consistent eye witness account, the court can very well discard the expert report.
17. For the purpose of arriving at a correct conclusion on the basis of opinion of expert, the court must take into consideration the differences between an expert witness and an ordinary witness. Whether the evidence of expert could be admitted or how much weight should be given to it, lies within the domain of the court.
18. In the present case the opinion of the doctor read with the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses does not appears to be credible. The prosecution failed to explain how a person who was found hanging from the ceiling fan in the room locked from all sides would be subjected to throttling. P.W.-7 the doctor, has not denied the possibility of partial fracture on the hide-bone, in case of hanging.
19. In view of the above, the judgment of the trial court is well merited one and the findings of the trial court do not require any interference by this Court.
20. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is affirmed.
21. The above leave to appeal application preferred by the State-appellant is hereby rejected.
Order on Government Appeal
1. In view of the fact that the leave to appeal application has already been rejected by order of date, the Government Appeal is also dismissed.
2. Office is directed to return the trial court record and notify this judgment too to the trial court within period of two weeks.
Order Date :- 4.4.2025/VKG