Allahabad High Court
Anurag Singh @ Chandan Singh vs State Of Up 2 Others on 6 November, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:194970-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 20 of 2024
Anurag Singh @ Chandan Singh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Up 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Vinay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.
1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for State and perused the trial court record.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2023 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria, in Session Trial No. 201/2019, acquitting the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3, under sections 307/34, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Barhaj, District- Deoria.
3. The prosecution case is that on 09.07.2018, the appellant had come to his house on leave. He was serving in Border Security Force at Jammu & Kashmir, at that time. The family of Dayal Singh, respondent no.2, did not had cordial relationship with him and his family and they harboured enmity against him and his family members. On 17.06.2018, respondent nos. 2, 3 and others encircled him and on the exhortation of respondent no.2, Thakur Dayal, fired from country made pistol on him which hit on his chest and arms. He ran to save his life and, thereafter, respondent no.3, Angad Singh, and his companions started firing on him. To save his life, he fired from his licensed pistol in self defence. He was medically examined in Sadar Hospital Deoria, and then referred to Medical College, but the police got him discharged and arrested him on 22.06.2018. Despite repeated applications, his F.I.R. was not lodged and hence he filed application before the Court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered and trial proceeded.
4. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined P.W.-1, Anurag Sing @ Chandan Singh; P.W.-2, Manager Singh; P.W.-3, Meena Singh; P.W.-4, Rajendra Singh; P.W.-5, Dr. Hari Narayan Singh; P.W.-6, Dr. K.C. Rai, P.W.-7, Harinath Yadav and P.W.-8, Umesh Singh, Sub-inspector.
5. The accused-respondent nos. 2 and 3 in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that the appellant has falsely implicated them on the basis of fabricated medical documents when he caused murder of, Anoop Singh @ Chhotu Singh.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court caused miscarriage of justice by acquitting the respondent nos.2 and 3 by ignoring the evidence on record.
7. 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.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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."
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that trial court has considered the evidence on record and has reached the conclusion that this case has been lodged as a cross case to the case of murder registered against the appellant by respondent no.2. During investigation the weapon where from the injuries were allegedly caused to the appellant was neither specified nor recovered. The injuries were not fatal for the life of the deceased and were found to be superficial in nature, when the appellant has caused the murder of one person on the other side by his licensed pistol. Trial court has rightly held that this case has been registered only as a cross case to the case of the murder got registered against the appellant by respondent no.2 regarding murder of his son. The injury report of the injured shows that he suffered only pellet injuries on his left chest, right shoulder, near right side of nose and right side of his face (all of sizes of 2 c.m. x 2 c.m.). There was no internal damage caused to the appellant.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court's judgement is a well merited one, this Court need not re-appreciate the evidences.
17. 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 AGA so as to warrant interference.
18. Thus, the appeal has no prima facie merits, therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
19. The criminal appeal is dismissed.
20. Let this judgment be communicated to the trial court by office within a week.
(Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Siddharth,J.) November 6, 2025 Abhishek