# Hargovind Ahirwar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 204
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hargovind-ahirwar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50945
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Acquittal in Murder
Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302,
201 ,120B - Circumstantial Evidence -
motive - illicit relationship - last seen -
chain of evidence - acquittal - reasonable
doubt
-
Conviction
based
solely
on
circumstantial evidence is not sustainable
unless
the
prosecution
establishes
a
complete chain of evidence proving the
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
and
excludes every other hypothesis. (Para
41-49)

Appellant
was
convicted
of
murder
and
conspiracy - allegation of an illicit relationship
with wife of deceased -conspired with her to
murder her husband - prosecution's case relied
on circumstantial evidence, including motive and
last seen evidence - No direct evidence was
presented
to
establish
the
accused's
involvement - Trial court acquitted wife of
deceased due to lack of evidence for conspiracy.
(Para 1-3, 10, 32-34, 39-40)

HELD: - Appellant cannot be convicted without
proof of motive or conspiracy with co-accused
(Sanjoo), who was acquitted by trial court.
Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and
201 IPC were set aside due to the prosecution's
failure to es

## Text

204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bulandshahar, in S.T. No.121 of 1990,
arising out of Case Crime No.122 of
1989, Police Station Khurja Dehat,
District Bulandshahar, whereby, the
appellant has been convicted for
charges under Sections 364, 302 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo ten
years
rigorous
imprisonment
for
offence under Section 364 IPC and
imprisonment for life for offence
under Section 302 IPC, is hereby set
aside and the accused is acquitted
from all charges. He is on bail and he
need not to surrender.

35. The appellant is directed to
file his bail and surety bonds in
compliance
of
Section
437-A
of
Cr.P.C., within a period of 10 days
from today.

36. Office is directed to return
the lower court record alongwith
certified copy of this Judgement for
necessary information/compliance, to
court concerned, within a period of
two weeks.

37. Learned Amicus Curiae is
entitled to get his professional fee of
Rs.15,000/-
(Fifteen
Thousands),
within a period of one month.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 204
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2023

Hargovind Ahirwar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Devendra Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Ramesh Kumar

(A) Criminal Law - Rejection of
Application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) -
Discretionary
power
of
court
-
Court may treat application under
Section
156(3)
as
a
complaint.(Para - 6)
Appellant filed an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - against 11
named
persons
and
2
unknown
-
Application alleged that their family
members were assaulted, property was
stolen - they were threatened with
caste-based
abuse
-
Trial
court
rejected application, treating it as
complaint
instead
of
directing
FIR
registration. (Para 3-4)

HELD: - Court upheld the trial court's
decision to treat the application as a
complaint rather than directing the
registration of an FIR. Trial court's
discretion
to
treat
application
as
complaint was valid. Court found no
illegality, impropriety or irregularity in
the order impugned. (Para -6)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar
Shukla, learned counsel for the
appellant,
Sri
Ramesh
Kumar,
learned counsel for opposite party
nos. 2 to 12 and Sri O.P. Mishra,
learned
AGA
for
the
State.
3 All. Hargovind Ahirwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
205

2. This criminal appeal has
been
filed
on
behalf
of
the
appellant challenging the impugned
order dated 17.11.2022 passed by
learned
Special
Judge,
SC/ST
(Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Act/Additional
District
and
Sessions
Judge,
Lalitpur
in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 725/2022
rejecting
the
application
under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. The undisputed facts are as
below:-

The
revisionist/appellant
moved an application against 11
named including the incharge S.O. ,
Police Station Mahrauni and two
unknown
under
Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C. alleging that they came on a
Safari to his house when they had
gone to sleep after celebrating the
birthday of his son Ankur; they
surrounded the house and before
the complainant could understand
anything, he saw that his daughter
in-law Seema has been trying to
strangulate her husband Ankur; she
snatched golden chain and diamond
ring from his person and physically
assaulted
him
causing
injuries;
when the complainant's wife Meera
Devi and daughter Bharti protested
to her, she called the police from
Police Station Mahrauni; the police
of the local police station took
away his son; next day at about 11
am in the morning all the accused
persons
again
intruded
in
his
house, broke open the lock of his
almirah and removed valuable and
cash; they physically assaulted his
family members; it is specifically
stated in the application that 2 days
thereafter on 20.09.2022, when he
was sitting on his shop as usual,
the incharge of Police StationRajesh Kumar Dubey threatened
him and abused him using caste
driven words.

4. The only contention of the
appellant is that there were 2
unknown person who cannot be
identified
unless
the
matter
is
investigated
by
the
police,
therefore the order passed by the
learned trial court directing the
registration of complaint case is
not sustainable.

5. The contention is opposed
by the other side arguing that the
appellant
cannot
insist
upon
a
particular relief from the court; if
the allegations as contained in the
application moved under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. are gone through,
there are enough of indicators to
demonstrate that whole story is
false and concocted; it was not
even
worth
grant
of
relief
of
registration as complaint, it should
have been out-rightly dismissed.

6. I went through all the
material on record. The learned
trial Judge found it fit to treat the
application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. as complaint. In my view it
was
perfectly
under
his
discretionary power to treat it as
complaint instead of directing for
registration of FIR. I do not find
any
illegality,
impropriety
or
irregularity in the order impugned.
Therefore, this criminal appeal is
dismissed.
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 206
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4593 of 2019

Saleem ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Prem Sagar Verma, Sri Madan Mohan,
Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri Amod Tripathi,
Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Acquittal in Murder
Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302,
201 ,120B - Circumstantial Evidence -
motive - illicit relationship - last seen -
chain of evidence - acquittal - reasonable
doubt
-
Conviction
based
solely
on
circumstantial evidence is not sustainable
unless
the
prosecution
establishes
a
complete chain of evidence proving the
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
and
excludes every other hypothesis. (Para
41-49)

Appellant
was
convicted
of
murder
and
conspiracy - allegation of an illicit relationship
with wife of deceased -conspired with her to
murder her husband - prosecution's case relied
on circumstantial evidence, including motive and
last seen evidence - No direct evidence was
presented
to
establish
the
accused's
involvement - Trial court acquitted wife of
deceased due to lack of evidence for conspiracy.
(Para 1-3, 10, 32-34, 39-40)

HELD: - Appellant cannot be convicted without
proof of motive or conspiracy with co-accused
(Sanjoo), who was acquitted by trial court.
Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and
201 IPC were set aside due to the prosecution's
failure to establish a complete chain of
circumstantial
evidence.
Appellant
was
acquitted. (Para - 49 to 52)

Appeal allowed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

1. Laxman Prasad Vs St. of M.P., (2023) 6 SCC
399

2. Pritinder Singh Vs St. of Punj., (2023) 7 SCC
727

3. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Maha.,
(1984) 4 SCC 116

4. Pradeep Kumar Vs St. of Har., (2024) SCC
OnLine SC 21

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Singh
Sangwan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the appellant and
learned AGA for the State.

2. This appeal is preferred against the
judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04.06.2019 passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 1, Hapur in
Sessions Trial No. 145 of 2017(State of
U.P. vs. Saleem and another), arising out of
Case Crime No. 498 of 2016, Police
Station-
Garh
Mukhteshwar,
District-
Hapur whereby the appellant was held
guilty of offence punishable under Section
302 and 201 of IPC and was sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment under Section
302 with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default
of non-deposit of fine to further undergo
simple imprisonment of one year and