Allahabad High Court
Ramanad Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 July, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:104218-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 545 of 2022 Appellant :- Ramanad Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Gyan Chandra Yadav,Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-I for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2022 passed by Session Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Session Trial No. 107 of 2012 (CNR No. UPGB01000004)- 2012) State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Adesh and Others, arising out of case crime no. 340 of 2011 under sections, 302 and 120-B of IPC and P.S.- Sector 39, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar.
3. The son of informant, Dinesh, aged about 22 years was pursuing the course of Hotel Management and about 7-8 months ago, Ram Pal, and his wife residents of, Sonipat, Haryana, proposed marriage of their daughter, Kavita, with his son. The elder daughter of, Rampal, is married in the village of informant and she made his son meet Kavita, but Dinesh, was not willing to marry Kavita and refuse to marry her. Subsequently, he came to know that his son, Dinesh, was having love affair with Madhuri @ Rachna, daughter of Ahivaram Singh, resident of Kannauj and wanted to marry her. On 23.04.2021, the family members of Madhuri had finalised their relationship and got the engagement ceremony done. When, Kavita, and her family members came to know of the same, they got annoyed and Kavita and his sisters, threatened his son on phone that they will not let his marriage solemnized with any other girl. On 01.05.2021 at 07:00 p.m., his son was going to tuition and was stopped by elder sister of Kavita, namely, Aadesh, in the way and she took him in a car and went away. Number of persons of the village saw them going together. At about 09:00 p.m., his son called on phone and could only state "papa' and, thereafter, someone disconnected his phone. He heard sound of two ladies and one male on the phone. Later, he found his son on the left seat of the car in unconscious position. He was given poison, his son was murdered by administering poison by Aadesh, Kavit, Rajesh and Rampal.
4. Before the trial court, the prosecution produced the following witnesses:---
1. P.W.-1,Ramanand, the informant proved Exhibit Ka 1, FIR.
2. P.W.- 2, Sukhpal, witness of the panchnama Ka-2 as well as witness of last seen.
3. PW.-3, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, proved post-mortem Exhibit Ka-3.
4. PW.-4, Pawan Kumar, the witness of last seen.
5. P.W.-5, Subhash, the witness of extra judicial confession
6. P.W.6, Rakesh, the witness of last seen.
7. P.W.-7, Sub-Inspector, Bacchu Singh, proved Panchyatnama Exhibit Ka 2, photo nash Exhibit Ka 4, report to CMO Exhibit Ka 5, Form 33- Exhibit Ka 6, Police paper- Form No. 13 Exhibit Ka 7, Namuna Mohar- Exhibit Ka 8, information regarding the deceased from Kailash Hospital Exhibit-Ka 9
8. P.W.-8- Madhavi @ Rachana, fiancee from whom deceased marriage was fixed by his parents.
9. P.W.- 9- Inspector Arun Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer, proved Site plan- Exhibit Ka 10 and charge-sheet Exhibit Ka 11.
10. PW 10- Munind Singh, Computer Operator proved Exhibit Chik.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.
6. 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.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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."
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has committed patent legal error in acquitting the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 without considering the evidence on record.
15. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that at the most, there is evidence of last seen against the respondents no. 2, Smt. Aadesh. The accused are residents of Haryana and they are alleged to have come to the village of the informant in Gautam Buddh Nagar for committing the alleged crime which does not seems probable. It has come in the evidence that the informant is related to the family of husband of respondent no.2, Smt. Aadesh, namely, Narendra. Respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. at Sonipat against her husband, Narendra, under section 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and their relationships were bad. The marriage of Kavita was solemnized on 12.03.2011 and the engagement of deceased, Dinesh, with Madhuri, was held subsequently on 23.04.2011.Therefore, at the time of aforesaid engagement of deceased with Madhuri, Kavita, was already married and the motive attributed to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 does not seems credible. The deceased died after consuming aluminum phosphide and it could not have been administered forcibly to the deceased.
16. The trial court has considered the material on record and rightly acquitted the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
17. 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.
18. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
19. Let the record of the trial court be returned and this judgement to be notified to the trial court, within two weeks.
Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Abhishek