Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Doodh Nath Rai vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 25 September, 2025
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).2016 OF 2023
DOODH NATH RAI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).2017 OF 2023
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
The present appeals have been filed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 08.07.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 4702/2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, wherein the High Court acquitted the respondent(s)- accused herein of offences under Sections 302 read with 34, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
2. The case of the prosecution was that the accused persons Signature Not Verified Anil Kumar Rai (accused No.1), Vijay Bahadur Rai (accused No.2) Digitally signed by BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2025.10.15 16:35:25 IST Reason: and Mahendra Rai (accused No.3) shot and killed the deceased 1 Arvind Rai (son of informant-appellant Doodh Nath Rai) on 08.12.2002. The trial was held pursuant to FIR No. 229/2002 registered on 08.12.2002 at P.S. Bardah, District Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh.
3. By judgment dated 07.08.2004 passed in Sessions Case Nos. 155 of 2003 and 251 of 2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Azamgarh, acquitted accused No.3- Mahender Rai while convicting accused Nos.1-Anil Kumar Rai and 2-Vijay Bahadur Rai and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the offences under Section 302 (read with Section 34) and Section 506(2) of the IPC and further sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. Accused-Anil Kumar Rai was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the same. The sentences were to run concurrently.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence, accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.4702 of 2004, the State of Uttar Pradesh preferred Government Appeal No. 5888 of 2004 against the acquittal of accused No.3, and the informant- appellant herein preferred Criminal Revision No. 4895 of 2004, all 2 before the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by a common judgment dated 08.07.2016 dismissed the Revision filed by the informant-appellant herein as well as the Government Appeal No. 5888 of 2004 and allowed Criminal Appeal No. 4702 of 2004 by acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the informant-appellant Doodh Nath Rai, as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh, have preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 2016 of 2023 and 2017 of 2023 respectively, challenging the acquittals of accused Nos.2 and 3 (collectively referred to as ‘respondent(s)- accused’).
5. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri Yathindra Singh for the informant-appellant and father of the deceased Arvind Rai. We have also heard learned senior counsel Sri PN Mishra and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and learned standing counsel Mr. Shristi Singh for the State of Uttar Pradesh, which is also the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2017 of 2023.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/ informant/complainant submitted that the High Court fell into error in reversing the judgment of the Sessions Court inasmuch as the Sessions Court had rightly convicted accused Nos.2 and 3 3 respondents herein. The reasons which have been assigned for acquitting the said accused are not only contrary to the evidence on record but also flimsy and without any basis. Therefore, he drew our attention to the reasons assigned by the High Court in juxtaposition with the evidence on record to contend that the judgment of acquittal may have to be reversed by this Court by restoring the judgment of conviction of the Sessions Court.
7. Learned standing counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh also supported the submissions of learned senior counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2016 of 2023 and contended that the High Court was not right in acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3, particularly having regard to the stark evidence which has been rightly appreciated by the Sessions Court while convicting them. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned judgment may be set aside and that the judgment of the Sessions Court may be restored insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.
8. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent(s)-accused supported the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. He contended that the High Court has rightly found flaws not only in the evidence on 4 record but also in the erroneous appreciation of the said evidence by the Sessions Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that on a detailed perusal of the evidence on record, it would be apparent that the High Court was justified in passing the judgment of acquittal in the instant case.
9. Learned senior counsel further submitted that even otherwise, although the High Court acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 by judgment dated 08.07.2016, by then the said accused had already completed thirteen years and seven months of imprisonment. Therefore, within a few months thereafter, they would have been entitled to seek remission of their sentence. Learned senior counsel submitted that thirteen years and seven months was the period of actual imprisonment undergone without any grant of remission. Therefore, he submitted that at least at this point of time, when the respondent(s)-accused are nearing their sixties, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order as they have already suffered their “just deserts” in the case.
10. Alternatively, learned senior counsel submitted that assuming that two views are possible with respect to the evidence 5 on record (without conceding the fact that that the judgment of the High Court is just and proper), the benefit of doubt ought to be granted to the respondent(s)-accused.
11. This is a case where the Sessions Court convicted the respondent(s)-accused Nos.1 and 2 while acquitting accused No.3. However, the High Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2, while there is no challenge to the acquittal of accused No.3 by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court.
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar. We have perused the material on record.
13. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the salutary principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused may be applied in the instant case, although learned senior counsel for the appellant has endeavoured to persuade this Court to take a different view in the matter.
14. We find that having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, at this stage, we may not be persuaded to go into the merits of the matter. In this regard, we are persuaded by the submissions made by the learned senior 6 counsel for the respondent(s)-accused.
15. It is of significance to note that the State of Uttar Pradesh has not assailed the acquittal of accused No.3 by the High Court (which upheld the order of acquittal of the Sessions Court); that the appellant herein has also not challenged the dismissal of its Criminal Revision; and that the State of Uttar Pradesh has also not assailed the dismissal of their appeal by the High Court before this Court inasmuch as they have only assailed the judgment of acquittal vis-à-vis accused Nos.1 and 2.
16. In the above circumstances, we find that the ends of justice would be met if we dismiss these appeals without going into the merits.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………..............................., J. (B. V. NAGARATHNA) .…………................................, J. (R. MAHADEVAN) NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 25, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.123 COURT NO.5 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2016/2023
DOODH NATH RAI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 49038/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 49036/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES WITH Crl.A. No. 2017/2023 (II) Date : 25-09-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Appellant(s) :
Mr. Yatindra Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Yatharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Divesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shrishti Gautam, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) : Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR Mr. P N Misra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Varun Singh, AOR Ms. Archana Singh, Adv. Mr. Inam Ul Haq, Adv.
Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kalyan Roy Bardhan, Adv. Mr. Suneet Singh, Adv. Mr. Yasser Wali, Adv.8
Mr. Abual Mannan, Adv.
Mr. Shoaib Khan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed non-
reportable judgment, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
9