# Gyan Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 925
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 6401 of 2011
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gyan-prakash-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48953
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal
- Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 -
Sections 372 & 378 - It is well settled
principle of law that appellate courts
hearing the appeal filed against the
judgment and the order of the acquittal
should
not
overrule
or
otherwise
disturbing the judgment acquittal, if the
appellate court does not find substantiate
and compelling reasons for doing so. (Para
15)

Nonetheless if the trial courts conclusion w.r.t.
the facts is palpably wrong if the trial court
decision was based on erroneous view of law
and the judgment is likely result in grave
miscarriage
of
justice and
the approach
proceeded towards wrong direction or the trial
court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material
evidence
which
should
have
determining the factor in the lis of the matter
then obviously the appellate court is right in
interfering with the
order acquitting the
accused. However, Hon'ble Apex Court has
further held that in case two views are possible
and the view so taken by the trial court while
acquitting the accused is a plausible view then
in the backdrop of the fact that there is double
presumption of innocence available to the
accused then obviously the appellate court
should not interfere with the order of acquittal.
(Para 16)

B. Effect of non-explanation of injuries -
(a) No universal rule can be laid down
while acquitting the accused in the matter
of
non-explanation
offered
by
the
prosecution w.r.t. the injuries suffered by
the accused. It cannot be held as a matter
of law or invariably a rule that whenever
accused sustained an injury in the same
occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to
explain the injury and on the failure of the
prosecution to do so the prosecution case
should
be
disbelieved.
Before
nonexplanation of the injuries on the person of the
accused persons by the prosecution witnesses
may affect the prosecution case, the court has
to be satisfied of the existence of two
conditions: (i) that the injury on the person of
the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii)
that such injuries must have been caused at the
time of the occurrence in question. Non-
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
explanation of injuries assumes greater
significance when the evidence consists of
interested or partisan witnesses or where
the
defence
gives
a
version
which
competes in probability with that of the
prosecution. Where the evidence is clear
cogent and credit worthy and where the Court
can distinguish the truth from falsehood the
mere fact that the injuries on the side of the
accused persons are not explained by the
prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to
reject
the
testimony
of
the
prosecution
witnesses and consequently the whole of the
prosecution case. (Para 28, 34, 35)

Non-explanation
of
injuries
by
the
prosecution will not affect prosecution
case where injuries sustained by the
accused are minor and superficial or
where the evidence is so clear and cogent,
so indep

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 95,459. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

8 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
925

31. In view of the discussion made
above and for all the reasons recorded
herein above, we have no hesitation in
holding that the prosecution has failed in its
endeavour to prove the charge against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The
trial court failed to evaluate and test the
prosecution
evidence
in
the
correct
perspective and took the evidence as gospel
truth. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
The judgment and order of the trial court
convicting and sentencing the appellant is
set
aside.
The
accused-appellant
is
acquitted of the charge for which he has
been tried and convicted. The appellant is
reported to be in jail. Unless wanted in any
other case, he shall be released forthwith
subject to compliance of the provisions of
Section 437-A CrPC to the satisfaction of
the trial court.

32. Let a copy of this order be
forwarded to the court below along with the
record for information and compliance.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 925
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6401 of 2011
(U/S 372 Cr.P.C.)

Gyan Prakash Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Satish Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate
A. Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal
- Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 -
Sections 372 & 378 - It is well settled
principle of law that appellate courts
hearing the appeal filed against the
judgment and the order of the acquittal
should
not
overrule
or
otherwise
disturbing the judgment acquittal, if the
appellate court does not find substantiate
and compelling reasons for doing so. (Para
15)

Nonetheless if the trial courts conclusion w.r.t.
the facts is palpably wrong if the trial court
decision was based on erroneous view of law
and the judgment is likely result in grave
miscarriage
of
justice and
the approach
proceeded towards wrong direction or the trial
court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material
evidence
which
should
have
determining the factor in the lis of the matter
then obviously the appellate court is right in
interfering with the
order acquitting the
accused. However, Hon'ble Apex Court has
further held that in case two views are possible
and the view so taken by the trial court while
acquitting the accused is a plausible view then
in the backdrop of the fact that there is double
presumption of innocence available to the
accused then obviously the appellate court
should not interfere with the order of acquittal.
(Para 16)

B. Effect of non-explanation of injuries -
(a) No universal rule can be laid down
while acquitting the accused in the matter
of
non-explanation
offered
by
the
prosecution w.r.t. the injuries suffered by
the accused. It cannot be held as a matter
of law or invariably a rule that whenever
accused sustained an injury in the same
occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to
explain the injury and on the failure of the
prosecution to do so the prosecution case
should
be
disbelieved.
Before
nonexplanation of the injuries on the person of the
accused persons by the prosecution witnesses
may affect the prosecution case, the court has
to be satisfied of the existence of two
conditions: (i) that the injury on the person of
the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii)
that such injuries must have been caused at the
time of the occurrence in question. Non-
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
explanation of injuries assumes greater
significance when the evidence consists of
interested or partisan witnesses or where
the
defence
gives
a
version
which
competes in probability with that of the
prosecution. Where the evidence is clear
cogent and credit worthy and where the Court
can distinguish the truth from falsehood the
mere fact that the injuries on the side of the
accused persons are not explained by the
prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to
reject
the
testimony
of
the
prosecution
witnesses and consequently the whole of the
prosecution case. (Para 28, 34, 35)

Non-explanation
of
injuries
by
the
prosecution will not affect prosecution
case where injuries sustained by the
accused are minor and superficial or
where the evidence is so clear and cogent,
so independent and disinterested, so
probable, consistent and creditworthy,
that it outweighs the effect of the
omission on the part of prosecution to
explain the injuries. Prosecution is not called
upon in all cases to explain the injuries received
by the accused persons. It is for the defence to
put questions to the prosecution witnesses
regarding the injuries of the accused persons.
When that is not done, there is no occasion for
the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury
on the person of an accused. (Para 31)

Grievous injuries suffered by the accused
are required to be explained by the
prosecution whereas, simple injuries need
not necessarily be. Non explanation of
simple injuries of the nature suffered by
the accused would not be fatal. (Para 34)

(b) Where the accused received injuries
during the same occurrence in which
complainants were injured and when they
have taken the plea that they acted in
self-defence,
that
cannot
be
lightly
ignored particularly in the absence of any
explanation
of
their
injuries
by the
prosecution. (Para 29)

In the present case the court finds that the
prosecution story itself proceeds on weak
evidence as the testimony of the witnesses do
not lead to a conclusion that the accused herein
had committed the crime. Bearing in mind the
fact that the incident alleged to have been
occurred is during day time in a place wherein
more than 50-60 workers were already working
in the agricultural field which was in close
vicinity and further the fact that the accused are
stated to be in possession of a country-made
pistol then too beating is stated to be
administered by cuddle, wooden stick and
hockey. In normal circumstances, it would be
safely said that the possession of country-made
pistol does not imply that use of cuddle, wooden
stick and hockey cannot be resorted to while
inflicting injuries but in the present case the
allegation is w.r.t. resorting of firing and
disposing the injured. It is quite abnormal and
inconceivable that in an open place wherein 5060 people were already there, 3 accused
persons will administer beating by hockey and
cuddle. The court below has further analysed
the medical reports as well as the other relevant
facts including the fact that P.W.3, who was
working and who had witnessed the said
incident while being in the farm which is just
close by to the place of occurrence reached the
place after a long time after the presence of
P.W.2, who came to rescue the victim from the
accused who was 2-3 kms. away. Nonetheless,
the FIR recites the fact that the complainant's
leg was also fractured and is also borne out
from the statement given by all the 3
prosecution witnesses, however, in the medical
report it has come on record that there was no
fracture in the leg. (Para 35)

In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the relevance
of explanation of the injuries of the accused
assumes importance and significance. Despite
the medical report being available w.r.t. the
injuries so sustained by the accused opposite
party no.3-Rama Shankar and proving of the
same by the medical practitioner herein, no
explanation has been given by the prosecution
which itself creates a cloud and suspicion that
the entire story so built up by the prosecution
stands no legal and factual foundation and
proceeds on weak evidences. The court below
has further held that the injuries so sustained by
the accused (even if it is true) are not fatal. This
Court further finds that the prosecution case
proceeds on weak evidences and in any view of
the matter, this is not a case wherein the
appellant/complainant can insist the Court to
8 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
927
take a different view from the view taken by the
Trial Court while acquitting the accused, while
reversing the judgment in question. (Para 36)

Criminal appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Tota Singh & anr.Vs St. of Pun., (1987) 2 SCC
529 (Para 17)

2. Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs St. of Guj., (1996) 9
SCC 225 (Para 17)

3. St. of Raj. Vs St. of Guj., (2003) 8 SCC 180
(Para 17)

4. St. of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC
755 (Para 17)

5.Chandrappa & ors. Vs St. of Karn., (2007) 4
SCC 415 (Para 17)

6. Ghurey Lal Vs St. of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450
(Para 17)

7. Siddharth Vashishtha @ Manu Sharma Vs
State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 (Para 17)

8. Babu Vs St.of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 (Para
17)

9. Ganpat Vs St. of Har., (2010) 12 SCC 59 (Para
17)

10. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) &
ors. Vs St. of Mah., (2010) 13 SCC 657 (Para
17)

11. St. of U.P. Vs Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324
(Para 17)

12. St. of M.P. Vs Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786
(Para 17)

13. Jayaswamy Vs St. of Karn., (2018) 7 SCC
219 (Para 17)

14. Jafarudheen & ors. Vs St. of Kerala, JT 2022
(4) SC 445 (Para 18)

15. Laxmi Singh & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, (1976) 4
SCC 394 (Para 24)
16. Bhaba Nanda Sarma & ors. Vs St. of Assam,
(1977) 4 SCC 396 (Para 25)

17. Vijayee Singh & ors. Vs St.of U.P., (1990) 3
SCC 190 (Para 26)

18. Dev Raj & anr. Vs St. of H.P., 1994 Supp (2)
SCC 552 (Para 27)

19.
Takhaji
Hiraji
Vs
Thakore
Kubersing
Chamansing & ors., (2001) 6 SCC 145 (Para 28)

20. Kashiram & ors. Vs St. of M.P., (2002) 1 SCC
71 (Para 29)

21. Sucha Singh & anr. Vs St. of Pun., (2003) 7
SCC 643 (Para 30)

22. Surendra Paswan Vs St. of Jharkhand,
(2003) 12 SCC 360 (Para 31)

23. Bishna Alias Bhiswadeb Mahato & ors.,
(2005) 12 SCC 657 (Para 32)

24. Ram Pyare Mishra Vs Prem Shanker & ors.,
(2008) 14 SCC 614 (Para 33)

25. Ram Pat & ors. Vs St. of Har., (2009) 7 SCC
614 (Para 34)

Present appeal assails judgment and order
dated 08.09.2011, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Jaunpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. This is an appeal under Section 372
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short
'Cr.P.C.') has been instituted by the
appellant-complainant-
Gyan
Prakash
Singh s/o Shekhraj Singh against the
judgment and order dated 08.09.2011,
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.3,
Jaunpur
in
Sessions
Trial
No.361/2003 (State vs. Panna Lal and two
Others), arising out of Case Crime
No.13/2000, under Sections 325/34, 307/34
IPC, Police Station- Shahganj, District
Jaunpur whereby the accused respondents
no.2 to 4 have been acquitted.
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. This appeal was presented before
this Court on 9th November, 2011 wherein
on 14.11.2011 this Court proceeded to pass
the following order:-

"Summon the record and list
thereafter."

3. Thereafter on 04.04.2014 and
07.05.2022 this Court proceeded to pass the
following order:-

4.4.2014

"Counsel for the appellant is not
present.

The lower court record has been
received.

List peremptorily on 24.4.2014"

7.5.2022

"Case is taken up.

None is present for the appellant.

Learned AGA is present.

Appeal is yet to be admitted.

List this case in the week
commencing 11.7.2022 for hearing on
admission.

It is made clear that if on the next
date learned counsel for the appellant will
not remain present, the Court will proceed
to decide the case appointing Amicus
Curiae or with the help of learned AGA."

4. Orders passed in the present appeal
reveals that after passing of the initial order
dated 14.11.2011 nobody was present to
press this appeal and ultimately this Court
on 07.05.2022 proceeded to fix the matter
today making it clear that in case on the
date so fixed therein (today) if the counsel
for the appellant is not present, the Court
will proceed to decide the case appointing
Amicus Curiae or with the help of learned
AGA.

5. Yet today itself nobody appears to
press the present appeal, thus this Court has
no option to decide the appeal with the
assistance of learned AGA.

6. The factual matrix of the case as
worded in the present appeal are that the
appellant-complainant being Gyan Prakash
Singh on 12.01.2000 at 12:30 noon was
about to proceed while carrying sugarcane
in a tractor from the village Chhatai Khurd
then at that point of time the accused herein
being Rama Shankar alias Jhuri Yadav,
Panna Lal Yadav and Nand Lal Yadav
dragged the complainant from the tractor in
question and with the aid of cuddle,
wooden stick and hockey administered
beating. Pursuant thereto ruckus was
created and on account of hue and cry, the
villagers, who were doing their agricultural
activities in the farm land so situated in the
vicinity came in and Indra Pal Singh and
Hari Nath Singh came to be rescued along
with others and on account of their
intervention the complainant could save his
life. While running away the accused
respondent no.3 fired with country-made
pistol and the complainant saved himself.
However, as per the prosecution version,
the complainant sustained injuries in his
shoulder and fracture was occasioned in his
right leg. It has been further alleged that the
accused
herein
hurled
abuses
and
threatened to kill the complainant. It has
also come on record that a written
complaint was filed on the instructions of
the complainant by one Shreekant Mishra,
8 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
929
Advocate and accordingly first information
report was registered under Sections 323,
325, 504, 506, 307 IPC before Police
Station -Shahganj, District Jaunpur.

7. As per the prosecution case the
complainant after lodging of the first
information report got himself medically
examined and according to prosecution
case complainant received 9 injuries. As
per the medical report the injuries were on
account of hard and blunt object and so far
as the injury no.9 is concerned, it was
referred for X-Ray. The other injuries were
simple in nature but fresh ones. Prosecution
has also come up with the stand that the
complainant got himself subjected to XRay, which is Ka-7, according to which on
the left shoulder fracture was found and so
far as legs are concerned, there was no
fracture.
Consequently,
Investigating
Officer was nominated, who conducted the
investigation and as per the prosecution site
plan was prepared and statements of the
prosecution witnesses were also taken and
chargesheet under Sections 323, 325, 504,
506, 307 IPC was submitted. The case was
committed for trial and the accused persons
pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled
against them.

8. In order to bring home the charges,
the following prosecution witnesses were
produced.

1
Gyan Prakash
P.W.1
2
Indra Pal Singh
P.W.2
3
Hari Ram Singh
P.W.3
4
S.I. Amar Singh
P.W.4
5
Dr. D.V. Singh
P.W.5
6
Dr. K.P. Mishra
P.W.6

9. As per the defence an alibi was also
taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that on
12.01.2000 at 12.00 hours the accused
respondent no.3-Rama Shankar alias Jhuri
Yadav was proceeding to one brick kiln
owned
by
one
Rambali
possessing
Rs.9400/- and when he reached near the
house of one Sanjay Singh then Ajay,
Vijay, Gyan Prakash, Prakash alias Sadhu,
Shailendra alias Pintu with the aid of
cuddle, wooden stick etc. administered
beating upon the accused respondent no.2
and took away the money which he
possessed at that point of time and
threatened the accused herein and he
sustained 9 injuries.

10. The defence in order to
substantiate their version got examined the
following witnesses:-

1
Arvind
Kumar
Yadav
D.W.1
2
Sushil Kumar
D.W.2
3
Vijay
Kumar
Pharmacist
D.W.3
4
Dr. R.K. Rai
D.W.4
5
Mohd. Mushlim
D.W.5
6
Abdul Rahman
D.W.6
7
Laxmi
Shankar
Yadav
D.W.7
8
Hari Shankar
D.W.8

11. The defence also produced paper
no.28Kha being an application under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for lodging of
the proceedings against the complainant
fraction. It was also pleaded that one Ajay,
Vijay s/o Ramchet, Gyan Prakash s/o Puran
Singh, Prakash alias Sadhu s/o Shekhraj,
Shailendra alias Pintu s/o Indra Nath,
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused Rama Shankar belonging to the
same village and there happens to be a
Pradhan election rivalry between them and
on the date of the commission of the crime
so sought to be alleged by the prosecution
the complainant- Gyan Prakash committed
the crime with regard to the motive being
with relation to election of the Pradhan and
also land dispute. So far as the accusedopposite party no.3-Rama Shankar alias
Jhuri Yadav is concerned, he also got
himself medically examined, wherein 9
injuries are stated to be sustained by him
whereas injury nos.2 and 9 was put to
observation and referred for X-Ray and the
said injuries were shown to be received by
virtue of weapon which is blunt.

12. We have heard Sri Ratan Singh,
learned AGA, who appears for the State of
U.P. and with his assistance the present
appeal is being decided.

13. Before delving upon the issue in
question which is being sought to be raised
at the behest of the informant/complainant
while filing the present appeal purported to
be under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the
order of acquittal so passed in favour of the
accused herein.

14. This Court has to bear in mind the
judicial verdict and the mandate so
envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court
wherein the courts of law have been
cautioned while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 372 Cr.P.C. as well as
Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. when the courts
of law have been occasioned to deal with
the
Government
Appeal
against
the
acquittal.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
series of decisions have been consistently
mandating that it is well settled principle of
law that appellate courts hearing the appeal
filed against the judgment and the order of
the acquittal should not overrule or
otherwise
disturbing
the
judgment
acquittal, if the appellate court does not
find substantiate and compelling reasons
for doing so.

16. Nonetheless if the trial courts
conclusion with regard to the facts is
palpably wrong if the trial court decision
was based on erroneous view of law and
the judgment is likely result in grave
miscarriage of justice and the approach
proceeded towards wrong direction or the
trial court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence which should
have determining the factor in the lis of the
matter then obviously the appellate court is
right in interfering with the order acquitting
the accused. However, Hon'ble Apex Court
has further held that in case two views are
possible and the view so taken by the trial
court while acquitting the accused is a
plausible view then in the backdrop of the
fact that there is double presumption of
innocence available to the accused then
obviously the appellate court should not
interfere with the order of acquittal.

17. The above noted proposition of
law is clearly spelt out in umpty number of
decisions, some of them are as under
namely:-Tota Singh and another vs. State
of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 529, Ramesh
Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996)
9 SCC 225, State of Rajesthan vs. State of
Gujarat, (2003) 8 SCC 180, State of Goa
vs. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755,
Chandrappa and others vs. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, Ghurey
Lal vs. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450,
Siddharth
Vashishtha
Alias
Manu
Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6
SCC 1, Babu vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 9
8 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
931
SCC 189, Ganpat vs. State of Haryana,
(2010)
12
SCC
59,
Sunil
Kumar
Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others vs.
State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657,
State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC
324, State of M.P. vs. Ramesh, (2011) 4
SCC 786, and Jayaswamy vs. State of
Karnataka, (2018) 7 SCC 219.

18. The Apex Court recently in
Jafarudheen & Ors. vs. State of Kerala,
JT 2022(4) SC 445 has observed as under:-

"DISCUSSION Scope of Appeal
filed against the Acquittal:

25. While dealing with an appeal
against acquittal by invoking Section 378
of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to
consider whether the Trial Court's view
can be termed as a possible one,
particularly when evidence on record has
been analyzed. The reason is that an order
of acquittal adds up to the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused. Thus,
the Appellate Court has to be relatively
slow in reversing the order of the Trial
Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the
presumption in favour of the accused does
not get weakened but only strengthened.
Such a double presumption that enures in
favour of the accused has to be disturbed
only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted
legal parameters. Precedents:

Mohan
@Srinivas
@Seena
@Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka,
[2021
SCC
OnLine
SC
1233]
as
hereunder: -

"20. Section 378 CrPC enables
the State to prefer an appeal against an
order of acquittal. Section 384 CrPC
speaks of the powers that can be exercised
by the Appellate Court. When the trial
court renders its decision by acquitting the
accused, presumption of innocence gathers
strength before the Appellate Court. As a
consequence, the onus on the prosecution
becomes more burdensome as there is a
double
presumption
of
innocence.
Certainly, the Court of first instance has its
own advantages in delivering its verdict,
which is to see the witnesses in person
while they depose. The Appellate Court is
expected to involve itself in a deeper,
studied scrutiny of not only the evidence
before it, but is duty bound to satisfy itself
whether the decision of the trial court is
both possible and plausible view. When two
views are possible, the one taken by the
trial court in a case of acquittal is to be
followed on the touchstone of liberty along
with the advantage of having seen the
witnesses. Article 21 of the Constitution of
India also aids the accused after acquittal
in a certain way, though not absolute.
Suffice it is to state that the Appellate Court
shall remind itself of the role required to
play, while dealing with a case of an
acquittal.

21. Every case has its own
journey towards the truth and it is the
Court's role undertake. Truth has to be
found on the basis of evidence available
before it. There is no room for subjectivity
nor the nature of offence affects its
performance. We have a hierarchy of
courts in dealing with cases. An Appellate
Court shall not expect the trial court to act
in a particular way depending upon the
sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be
appreciated if a trial court decides a case
on its own merit despite its sensitivity.

22. At times, courts do have their
constraints. We find, different decisions
being made by different courts, namely,
trial court on the one hand and the
Appellate Courts on the other. If such
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decisions are made due to institutional
constraints, they do not augur well. The
district judiciary is expected to be the
foundational court, and therefore, should
have the freedom of mind to decide a case
on its own merit or else it might become a
stereotyped one rendering conviction on a
moral
platform.
Indictment
and
condemnation over a decision rendered, on
considering all the materials placed before
it, should be avoided. The Appellate Court
is expected to maintain a degree of caution
before making any remark.

23. This court, time and again
has laid down the law on the scope of
inquiry by an Appellate court while dealing
with an appeal against acquittal under
Section 378 CrPC. We do not wish to
multiply the aforesaid principle except
placing reliance on a recent decision of this
court in Anwar Ali v. State of Himanchal
Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166:

14.2. When can the findings of
fact recorded by a court be held to be
perverse
has
been
dealt
with
and
considered in paragraph 20 of the
aforesaid decision, which reads as under :
(Babu case [Babu v. State of Kerala,
(2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1179])

"20. The findings of fact recorded
by a court can be held to be perverse if the
findings have been arrived at by ignoring or
excluding relevant material or by taking into
consideration
irrelevant/inadmissible
material. The finding may also be said to be
perverse if it is "against the weight of
evidence", or if the finding so outrageously
defies logic as to suffer from the vice of
irrationality. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v.
Delhi Admn. [Rajinder Kumar Kindra v.
Delhi Admn., (1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC
(L&S) 131], Excise & Taxation Officer-cumAssessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons
[Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing
Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons, 1992 Supp
(2) SCC 312], Triveni Rubber & Plastics v.
CCE [Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE,
1994 Supp (3) SCC 665], Gaya Din v.
Hanuman Prasad [Gaya Din v. Hanuman
Prasad, (2001) 1 SCC 501], Aruvelu
[Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 288] and Gamini Bala
Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. [Gamini Bala
Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P., (2009) 10
SCC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 372] )"

It
is
further
observed,
after
following the decision of this Court in
Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [Kuldeep
Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 :
1999 SCC (L&S) 429], that if a decision is
arrived at on the basis of no evidence or
thoroughly unreliable evidence and no
reasonable person would act upon it, the
order would be perverse. But if there is some
evidence on record which is acceptable and
which could be relied upon, the conclusions
would not be treated as perverse and the
findings would not be interfered with.

14.3. In the recent decision of
Vijay Mohan Singh [Vijay Mohan Singh v.
State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436 :
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 586], this Court again
had an occasion to consider the scope of
Section 378 CrPC and the interference by
the High Court [State of Karnataka v. Vijay
Mohan Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar
10732] in an appeal against acquittal. This
Court considered a catena of decisions of
this Court right from 1952 onwards. In
para 31, it is observed and held as under:

"31. An identical question came
to be considered before this Court in
Umedbhai
Jadavbhai
[Umedbhai
8 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
933
Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1
SCC 228 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 108]. In the
case before this Court, the High Court
interfered with the order of acquittal
passed by the learned trial court on
reappreciation of the entire evidence on
record. However, the High Court, while
reversing the acquittal, did not consider the
reasons given by the learned trial court
while acquitting the accused. Confirming
the judgment of the High Court, this Court
observed and held in para 10 as under:

''10. Once the appeal was rightly
entertained against the order of acquittal,
the High Court was entitled to reappreciate
the entire evidence independently and come
to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High
Court would give due importance to the
opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same
were arrived at after proper appreciation
of the evidence.

This rule will not be applicable in
the present case where the Sessions Judge
has made an absolutely wrong assumption
of a very material and clinching aspect in
the peculiar circumstances of the case.'

31.1. In Sambasivan [Sambasivan
v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 : 1998
SCC (Cri) 1320], the High Court reversed
the order of acquittal passed by the learned
trial court and held the accused guilty on
reappreciation of the entire evidence on
record, however, the High Court did not
record its conclusion on the question
whether the approach of the trial court in
dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it
were wholly untenable. Confirming the
order passed by the High Court convicting
the accused on reversal of the acquittal
passed by the learned trial court, after
being satisfied that the order of acquittal
passed by the learned trial court was
perverse and suffered from infirmities, this
Court declined to interfere with the order
of conviction passed by the High Court.
While confirming the order of conviction
passed by the High Court, this Court
observed in para 8 as under:

''8.
We
have
perused
the
judgment
under
appeal
to
ascertain
whether the High Court has conformed to
the aforementioned principles. We find that
the High Court has not strictly proceeded
in the manner laid down by this Court in
Doshi case [Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State
of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 972] viz. first recording its conclusion
on the question whether the approach of
the trial court in dealing with the evidence
was patently illegal or the conclusions
arrived at by it were wholly untenable,
which alone will justify interference in an
order of acquittal though the High Court
has rendered a well-considered judgment
duly meeting all the contentions raised
before it. But then will this non-compliance
per se justify setting aside the judgment
under appeal? We think, not. In our view,
in such a case, the approach of the court
which is considering the validity of the
judgment of an appellate court which has
reversed the order of acquittal passed by
the trial court, should be to satisfy itself if
the approach of the trial court in dealing
with the evidence was patently illegal or
conclusions
arrived
at
by
it
are
demonstrably unsustainable and whether
the judgment of the appellate court is free
from those infirmities; if so to hold that the
trial
court
judgment
warranted
interference. In such a case, there is
obviously no reason why the appellate
court's judgment should be disturbed. But if
on the other hand the court comes to the
conclusion that the judgment of the trial
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court does not suffer from any infirmity, it
cannot but be held that the interference by
the appellate court in the order of acquittal
was not justified; then in such a case the
judgment of the appellate court has to be
set aside as of the two reasonable views,
the one in support of the acquittal alone
has to stand. Having regard to the above
discussion, we shall proceed to examine the
judgment of the trial court in this case.'

31.2.
In
K.
Ramakrishnan
Unnithan [K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v.
State of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 309: 1999
SCC (Cri) 410], after observing that
though there is some substance in the
grievance of the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the accused that the High
Court has not adverted to all the reasons
given by the trial Judge for according an
order of acquittal, this Court refused to set
aside the order of conviction passed by the
High Court after having found that the
approach
of
the Sessions
Judge
in
recording the order of acquittal was not
proper and the conclusion arrived at by the
learned Sessions Judge on several aspects
was unsustainable. This Court further
observed that as the Sessions Judge was
not
justified
in
discarding
the
relevant/material evidence while acquitting
the accused, the High Court, therefore, was
fully entitled to reappreciate the evidence
and record its own conclusion. This Court
scrutinised the evidence of the eyewitnesses
and opined that reasons adduced by the
trial court for discarding the testimony of
the eyewitnesses were not at all sound. This
Court also observed that as the evaluation
of the evidence made by the trial court was
manifestly erroneous and therefore it was
the duty of the High Court to interfere with
an order of acquittal passed by the learned
Sessions Judge.

31.3. In Atley [Atley v. State of
U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 : 1955 Cri LJ
1653], in para 5, this Court observed and
held as under:

''5. It has been argued by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the
judgment of the trial court being one of
acquittal, the High Court should not have
set it aside on mere appreciation of the
evidence led on behalf of the prosecution
unless it came to the conclusion that the
judgment of the trial Judge was perverse.
In our opinion, it is not correct to say that
unless the appellate court in an appeal
under Section 417 CrPC came to the
conclusion that the judgment of acquittal
under appeal was perverse it could not set
aside that order.

It has been laid down by this
Court that it is open to the High Court on
an appeal against an order of acquittal to
review the entire evidence and to come to
its own conclusion, of course, keeping in
view the well-established rule that the
presumption of innocence of the accused is
not weakened but strengthened by the
judgment of acquittal passed by the trial
court
which
had
the
advantage
of
observing the demeanour of witnesses
whose evidence have been recorded in its
presence.

It is also well settled that the
court of appeal has as wide powers of
appreciation of evidence in an appeal
against an order of acquittal as in the case
of an appeal against an order of
conviction, subject to the riders that the
presumption of innocence with which the
accused person starts in the trial court
continues even up to the appellate stage
and that the appellate court should attach
8 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
935
due weight to the opinion of the trial court
which recorded the order of acquittal.

If the appellate court reviews the
evidence, keeping those principles in mind,
and comes to a contrary conclusion, the
judgment cannot be said to have been
vitiated. (See in this connection the very
cases cited at the Bar, namely, Surajpal
Singh v. State [Surajpal Singh v. State,
1951 SCC 1207 : AIR 1952 SC 52];
Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P. [Wilayat
Khan v. State of U.P., 1951 SCC 898 : AIR
1953 SC 122]) In our opinion, there is no
substance in the contention raised on
behalf of the appellant that the High Court
was not justified in reviewing the entire
evidence
and
coming
to
its
own
conclusions.'

31.4. In K. Gopal Reddy [K.
Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., (1979) 1 SCC
355 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 305], this Court has
observed that where the trial court allows
itself to be beset with fanciful doubts,
rejects creditworthy evidence for slender
reasons and takes a view of the evidence
which is but barely possible, it is the
obvious duty of the High Court to interfere
in
the
interest
of
justice,
lest
the
administration of justice be brought to
ridicule."

N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N.,
[(2021) 3 SCC 687] as hereunder: -

"20. Mainly it is contended by
Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant that the view
taken by the trial court is a "possible view",
having regard to the evidence on record. It
is submitted that the trial court has
recorded cogent and valid reasons in
support of its findings for acquittal. Under
Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is
made between an appeal against acquittal
and the appeal against conviction. By
considering the long line of earlier cases
this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa
v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325 has laid down the
general principles regarding the powers of
the appellate Court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal. Para
42 of the judgment which is relevant reads
as under: (SCC p. 432)

"42. From the above decisions, in
our considered view, the following general
principles
regarding
powers
of
the
appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full
power
to
review,
reappreciate
and
reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.

(2)
The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
puts
no
limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the
evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.

(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(4) An appellate court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of the
accused.
Firstly,
the
presumption
of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental
principle
of
criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court."

21. Further in the judgment in
Murugesan [Murugesan v. State, (2012) 10
SCC 383: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 69] relied on
by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, this Court has considered the
powers of the High Court in an appeal
against acquittal recorded by the trial
court.
In
the
said
judgment,
it
is
categorically held by this Court that only in
cases where conclusion recorded by the
trial court is not a possible view, then only
the High Court can interfere and reverse
the acquittal to that of conviction. In the
said judgment, distinction from that of
"possible view" to "erroneous view" or
"wrong view" is explained. In clear terms,
this Court has held that if the view taken by
the trial court is a "possible view", the
High Court not to reverse the acquittal to
that of the conviction.

xxx xxx xxx

23. Further, in Hakeem Khan v.
State of M.P., (2017) 5 SCC 719 : (2017) 2
SCC (Cri) 653 this court has considered
the powers of the appellate court for
interference in cases where acquittal is
recorded by the trial court. In the said
judgment it is held that if the "possible
view" of the trial court is not agreeable for
the High Court, even then such "possible
view" recorded by the trial court cannot be
interdicted. It is further held that so long as
the view of the trial court can be
reasonably formed, regardless of whether
the High Court agrees with the same or
not, verdict of the trial court cannot be
interdicted and the High Court cannot
supplant over the view of the trial court.
Para 9 of the judgment reads as under:
(SCC pp. 722-23) "9. Having heard the
learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the view that the trial court's judgment is
more than just a possible view for arriving
at the conclusion of acquittal, and that it
would not be safe to convict seventeen
persons accused of the crime of murder i.e.
under Section 302 read with Section 149 of
the Penal Code. The most important reason
of the trial court, as has been stated above,
was that, given the time of 6.30 p.m. to 7.00
p.m. of a winter evening, it would be dark,
and, therefore, identification of seventeen
persons would be extremely difficult. This
reason, coupled with the fact that the only
independent witness turned hostile, and two
other eyewitnesses who were independent
were not examined, would certainly create
a large hole in the prosecution story. Apart
from this, the very fact that there were
injuries on three of the accused party, two
of them being deep injuries in the skull,
would lead to the conclusion that nothing
was premeditated and there was, in all
probability, a scuffle that led to injuries on
both sides. While the learned counsel for
the respondent may be right in stating that
the trial court went overboard in stating
that the complainant party was the
8 All.