# Haibat Ram Revisionist v. Govind Lal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1445
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1996
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/haibat-ram-revisionist-v-govind-lal-ors-51271
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147/148, 323/149, 308/149 &
426/149 - Against acquittal order - As per
prosecution, complainant and accused,
residents of same village, had prior
enmity. On 31.08.1988 at about 6:00 A.M.,
accused
were
cutting
trees
in
complainant's field - When objected, they
assaulted him with lathi and danda - On
intervention,
complainant's
family
members were also beaten - Villagers
arrived
on
hearing
cries,
whereupon
accused
fled
-
Trial
court,
after
considering evidence, acquitted accused -
Counsel for revisionist contends that trial
court failed to appreciate evidence and
ignored witness St.ments and acquittal
was based on conjectures and surmises -
However, from prosecution witnesses'
testimony, appears that prosecution failed
to establish accused's involvement, no
direct evidence produced by prosecution
regarding involvement of opposite parties
in crime - Court below adopted probable
and logical view based on valid reasons.
(Para 4-7, 8)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Haibat Ram Vs. Govind Lal & Ors.
1445
in respect of any appeal or petition filed
against the judgment of this Court, such
bail bonds shall be enforced for six months.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1445
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1996

Haibat Ram ...Revisionist
Versus
Govind Lal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
M. Naseerullah, Ayush Singh, Sushil Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Devi Prasad Singh, Rajesh
Kumar Srivastava

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147/148, 323/149, 308/149 &
426/149 - Against acquittal order - As per
prosecution, complainant and accused,
residents of same village, had prior
enmity. On 31.08.1988 at about 6:00 A.M.,
accused
were
cutting
trees
in
complainant's field - When objected, they
assaulted him with lathi and danda - On
intervention,
complainant's
family
members were also beaten - Villagers
arrived
on
hearing
cries,
whereupon
accused
fled
-
Trial
court,
after
considering evidence, acquitted accused -
Counsel for revisionist contends that trial
court failed to appreciate evidence and
ignored witness St.ments and acquittal
was based on conjectures and surmises -
However, from prosecution witnesses'
testimony, appears that prosecution failed
to establish accused's involvement, no
direct evidence produced by prosecution
regarding involvement of opposite parties
in crime - Court below adopted probable
and logical view based on valid reasons.
(Para 4-7, 8)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357, (Paras 20, 21)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

(Order
on
C.M.
Application
No.IA/3/2023; Substitution Application)

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Singh,
learned Counsel for the revisionist, Shri
Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for
the State-opposite party.

The present application seeks to
substitute the revisionist/ Haibat Ram, who
has died and the applicant/Satish Kumar,
being the son of the revisionist to prosecute
the respondents in the present revision,
which is against the acquittal.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist
submits that the original revisionist/Haibat
Ram had expired during the pendency of
the present revision, thus, he submits that
the present applicant, namely-Satish Kumar
being the son of the revisionist be
substituted in the present revision to
prosecute the respondents in the present
revision, which is against the acquittal.

Learned A.G.A-I has no objection to
the contention made on behalf of the
revisionist.

Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
revisionist is directed to substitute the
revisionist/ Haibat Ram, who has died with
the applicant/Satish Kumar, being the son
1446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of
the
revisionist
to
prosecute
the
respondents in the present revision, during
the course of the day.

(Order on Memo of Revision)

1. List has been revised and the case
is being taken up in the revised call of the
list.

2. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Singh,
learned Counsel for the revisionist, Shri
Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for
the State-opposite party.

3. The present revision under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 01.02.1996 of
acquittal of the respondent Nos.1 to 24,
passed by V Additional Sessions Judge,
Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No.119/1991;
State vs. Govind Lal and 23 Others
acquitting all the accused persons under
Sections 147/148, 323/149, 308/149 and
426/149 I.P.C.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that
the complainant and the accused persons
are resident of same village. There was some
old enmity in between the parties. On 31.08.1988 at
about 6:00 A.M., the accused persons were toiling
and cutting the trees planted by the
complainant in his field, the complainant
tried to stop them but the accused persons
started beating him with lathi and danda.
Thereafter, the family members of the
complainant also reached the spot and
tried to save him but they were also
brutally beaten. On hue and cry, the
nearby villagers arrived at the spot, then
accused persons fled away from the spot.

5. The court below after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case and evidence available on record, passed
the judgment and order of acquittal dated
01.02.1996.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the court below did not appreciate
the evidence on record. He further submits that
prosecution has successfully proved the offence
against the accused on the basis of evidence.
The judgment was passed without considering
the statement of witnesses and the case set up
by the prosecution and the judgment of the
acquittal was passed on surmises and
conjectures.

7. I have heard the submissions advanced
by the earned counsel for the revisionist and
gone through the judgment passed by the court
below.

8. In the present case from the statements
given by the witnesses produced by the
prosecution, I found that prosecution has failed
to establish that the crime in question has been
committed by the accused and there was no
direct evidence produced by the prosecution
regarding involvement of the opposite parties in
the crime.

9. Further, learned counsel for the
revisionist could not point out any illegality or
infirmity in the judgment and order of
acquittal passed in favour of respondents
which is before this Court.

10. Further, this Court observed that
an revision against acquittal stands on a
different footing from the revision against
conviction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a
very recent judgment in the case of
Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others reported in (2016) 4
SCC 357 has considered this difference
and has observed in paragraph nos.20 and
21 as under:
2 All. Haibat Ram Vs. Govind Lal & Ors.
1447

"20. Generally, an appeal against
acquittal has always been altogether on a
different pedestal from that of 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 of fact and law. However, we
believe that the paramount consideration of
the Court is to do substantial justice and
avoid miscarriage of justice which can
raise by acquitting the accused who is
guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of
justice that may occur by the acquittal of
the guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. This Court,
while enunciating the principles with
regard to the scope of powers of the
appellate court in an appeal against
acquittal, in Sambasiva V. State of Kerala
1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held:

"7. The principles with regard to
the scope of the powers of the appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal, are
well settled. The powers of the appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal are no
less than in an appeal against conviction.
But where on the basis of evidence on
record two views are reasonably possible
the appellate court cannot substitute its
view in the place of that of the trial court. It
is only when the approach of the trial in
acquitting an accused is found to be clearly
erroneous in its consideration of evidence
on record and in deducing conclusions
therefrom that the appellate court can
interfere with the order of acquittal."
21. The Court, in several cases, has taken
the consistent view that the appellate court,
while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law
to review and relook the entire evidence on
which the order of acquittal is founded. If
the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that
the decision of the court below is based on
erroneous
views
and
against
settled
position of law, then the interference of the
appellate court with such an order is
imperative."

11. In the light of the aforesaid
guidelines, the impugned judgment has to
be considered from the point of view
whether the view taken by the court below
was a probable view based on the material
on record or it is an absolutely erroneous
judgment devoid of merits.

12. A criminal trial proceeds with the
presumption of innocence of the accused
persons. With the acquittal of the accused
persons this presumption of innocence
stands fortified. So very strong and cogent
reasons must exist in interfering the
judgment of acquittal.

13. Keeping in view the aforesaid
weakness of the prosecution case, as noted
by the court below, I am of the view that
the view taken by the court below was a
probable and logical view, which is based
on valid reasons. The judgment of the court
below cannot be said to be illegal, illogical
and improbable and not based on material
on record or is based on erroneous views
and is against the settled position of law.
So, this Court is satisfied that there is
absolutely no hope of success in this
revision and accordingly, no interference is
called for.

14. Accordingly, the present revision
against acquittal is dismissed.

15. No order as to costs.

16. Copy of this judgment be sent to
the court below for its compliance.
1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1448
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 192 of 2011

Bipin Bihari Chaurasiya ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Indrajeet Shukla, Manoj
Kumar Nishad, Skand Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 148, 302, 307, 504 & 506 - Arms
Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Explosives
Substance Act, 1908 - Section 4/5-
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7-A -
Juvenility - Plea of - In view of law laid
down in Paul George (infra), order dated
15.11.2022, passed in absence of counsel
and without reasons, being ex parte,
devoid of adjudication on merits, recall
application allowed - Revisionist claim
juvenility
on
basis
of
High
School
certificate issued in year 1997, which
records his date of birth as 09.07.1981 -
Under
Rule
12(3)(i),
date
of
birth
recorded in matriculation certificate to be
treated
conclusive
proof,
no
further
inquiry warranted - Trial court, while
examining
said
claim,
relied
upon
testimony of AW-1, who deposed that he
was aged about 73 years and that his
younger sister, i.e. mother of accused was
7-8 years junior to him, making her
present age about 65 years - Witness St.d
that his sister married at age of 16-17
years, delivered her first child in 1975 -
Trial court observed that if mother is
presently about 65 years of age and
married at 16-17 years (or at most 20
years), assertion of first child being born
in 1975 is not believable - Consequently,
held that revisionist not be treated as
below 18 years of age on date of incident -
Trial court's rejection of High School
certificate
not
permissible
in
law
-
Impugned order, set aside, trial court
directed to determine juvenility on basis
of date of birth recorded in High School
certificate. (Para 6, 14 to 16)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Paul George Vs St.: (2002) 2 SCC 406, (Paras
6, 7)

2. Brij Mohan Singh Vs Priya Brat Narain Sinha &
ors.: AIR 1965 SC 282

3. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P., (2012)
9 SCC 750, (Paras 32, 33, 35)

4. Abuzar Hossain Vs St. of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC
489, (Paras 39.1 to 39.6)

5. Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs St. of U.P., (2022) 8
SCC 602, (Paras 33.1 to 33.11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi
J.)

Order on Crl. Misc. Application
No.6 of 2023 & 7 of 2023:

1. Heard Sri Skand Bajpai, the learned
counsel for the revisionist, Smt. Parul Kant,
the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of
the State and perused the records.

2. These are applications seeking
condonation of delay in filing application
for recall and the application for recall of
ex-parte order dated 15.11.2022, passed by
a coordinate Bench of this court on the
ground that the revisionist had engaged Sri
Indrajeet Shukla, Advocate as his counsel,