Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Wahid S/O Jaheer on 13 December, 2024
Bench: Siddharth, Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196231-DB Court No. - 48 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 209 of 2023 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Wahid S/O Jaheer Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. Leave to Appeal Application No...2023.
1. Heard Ms. Manju Thakur learned A.G.A.-I, for the State-appellant and perused the material on record.
2. The above noted leave to appeal application has been filed praying for granting of leave to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.12.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1/Special Judge Women Harassment, District- Baghpat, passed in Sessions Trial No. 76/2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Wahid), registered as Case Crime No. 189/2011, under sections 147, 148, 354, 452, 307/149, 302/149, 504 of I.P.C. and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Baghpat, District- Baghpat.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 06.04.2011 at 10:10 a.m. complainant of the case gave a typed application at Police Station concerned, stating therein that his daughter, namely, Nasreen aged about 16 years had gone at 07:00 a.m. to throw garbage where accused, Wahid and Sonu, teased her. She told to her Tau namely Haji Hameed, and, thereafter, Haji Hameed, Nawabuddin alias Bhoora had gone at the house of accused, Sonu, for making his complaint. Family members of Sonu stated that they are coming at their house along with Sonu and Wahid. After sometime at about 8:00 a.m. Sonu son of Anees, Wahid son of Jaheed, Anees son of Shareef, Sanno son of Anees, Ameer son of Shareef, all residents of old Baghpat, armed with country made pistols and Gaffar son of Shabbir, Tahir son of Jaheer, residents of old Baghpat, armed with sword and Zahid son of Jaheer, Yameen son of Yaseen, Intjar son of Chhaggo, residents of old Baghpat, armed with lathi danda entered in the house of complainant and by abusing in filthy language they made indiscriminate firing and also attacked with sword and lathi, due to which Haji Hameed died on, spot, and Nawabudeen alias Bhoora, Sabir son of Wahid, Shakeela wife of Haji Hameed, Warisha daughter Shareef received serious injuries. Looking to the aforesaid incident the people of the locality closed their doors, and after hearing the hue and cry of injured persons Arbu son of Hakeemu and Jahid son of Haneef and others came, and on seeing them the accused person, fled away from the spot by brandishing their Tamanchas in the air. Thereafter the injured persons were brought in hospital and injured namely Nawabuddin, Sabir and Shakeela were seriously injured and on seeing their condition, they were referred to higher center of treatment and while they were being brought to Delhi, injured, namely, Nawabuddin, died in the way, and the rest injured were brought to Delhi for treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid information, first information report of present case was lodged and after lodging of the first information report of present case, the Investigating Officer started investigation and investigated the case and after completing all formalities and collecting credible evidences submitted charge sheet before the trial court.
4. The accused-respondent on being charges denied the prosecution allegations and sought trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1 Haji Rafeek, PW-2 Shakila, PW-3 Dr. Warisa, PW-4 Dr. Ashok Lathiyan, PW-5 Arbudeen, PW-6 Jahid, PW-7 Shaukat, PW-8 Mahboob, PW-9 Nasreen and PW-10 Dr. Sunil Kumar.
6. That the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused-respondent is entitled for acquittal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.
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 learned counsel for State-appellant and perusal of material on record, we find that the dispute started when P.W.-9, went to throw garbage and she was subjected to misbehaviour by the accused persons. Before the trial court she has clearly stated that the respondent was not there when the incident took place. P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 have also not named the appellant and stated that the respondent, Wahid, was not present on the place of incident. P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 have also not proved the presence and involvement of the respondent in the alleged offences. However, except the respondent, all the other accused have been convicted by the trial court.
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. This leave to appeal application is rejected.
Order on Government Appeal
1. Since leave to appeal application is rejected, therefore, the above noted government appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
2. Let the record of the trial court be returned and this judgement to be notified to the trial court, within two weeks.
Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Abhishek