# Javed Alam v. Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 21
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. 31 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/javed-alam-v-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-50407
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 308/34, 323/34, 504 & 506 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 313 - Appeal against acquittal -
According to prosecution, on 18.03.2016
when son of complainant/appellant was
coming to his house dragging a cart which
was laden by mustard crops, fennel crops
standing in field of opposite party No. 1
got stuck, on this accused persons abused
him, thereafter, appellant was going to his
field again for taking crops, accused
persons assaulted him - On shrieks,
complainant and his family members
reached at spot, accused persons fled
,threatened complainant and his other
family
members
-
Written
report
registered
by
police
against
accused
persons. (Para 3)

Contention by appellant, court below not
appreciate
evidence
on
record,
prosecution
proved
offence
against
accused
on
basis
of
evidence
and
impugned judgment was passed without
considering St.ment of witnesses. (Para 5)

Held,
criminal
trial
proceeds
with
presumption of innocence of accused
persons - With acquittal of accused
persons, this presumption stands fortified
- Strong and cogent reasons must exist in
interfering judgment of acquittal - View
by court below was probable and logical,
based on valid reasons. (Para 11, 12)

Appeal dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported
in (2016) 4 SCC 357, (Para 20, 21)
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

7 All. Javed Alam Vs. Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors.
21
passed by Additional Sessions and District
Judge, VIIIth, District Lucknow in Session
Trial No. 110 of 1994 arising out of Case
Crime No. 352 of 1994 and Case Crime
No. 353 of 1994 under Sections 8/21 of
Narcotics
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substance Act, 1985 and 25/4 of the Arms
Act, 1959, Police Station Hazratganj
District Lucknow, is set aside and accused
appellant is acquitted. Consequently, the
appeal is allowed.

28). Keeping in view the provision of
Section 437-A of the Code, appellant-Liyaqat
Ali is hereby directed forthwith to furnish a
personal bond of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and
two reliable sureties each of the like amount
before Trial Court, which shall be effective
for a period of six months, along with an
undertaking that in the event of filing of
Special Leave Petition against this judgment
or for grant of leave, appellant-Liyaqat Ali,
on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear
before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

29). Appellant is on bail, his personal
bond is cancelled and sureties stand
discharged.

30). Let a copy of this judgment along
with the lower court record be sent
immediately to the Trial Court concerned
for necessary compliance.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 21
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. 31 of 2023

Javed Alam ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sajjad Hussain

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 308/34, 323/34, 504 & 506 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 313 - Appeal against acquittal -
According to prosecution, on 18.03.2016
when son of complainant/appellant was
coming to his house dragging a cart which
was laden by mustard crops, fennel crops
standing in field of opposite party No. 1
got stuck, on this accused persons abused
him, thereafter, appellant was going to his
field again for taking crops, accused
persons assaulted him - On shrieks,
complainant and his family members
reached at spot, accused persons fled
,threatened complainant and his other
family
members
-
Written
report
registered
by
police
against
accused
persons. (Para 3)

Contention by appellant, court below not
appreciate
evidence
on
record,
prosecution
proved
offence
against
accused
on
basis
of
evidence
and
impugned judgment was passed without
considering St.ment of witnesses. (Para 5)

Held,
criminal
trial
proceeds
with
presumption of innocence of accused
persons - With acquittal of accused
persons, this presumption stands fortified
- Strong and cogent reasons must exist in
interfering judgment of acquittal - View
by court below was probable and logical,
based on valid reasons. (Para 11, 12)

Appeal dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported
in (2016) 4 SCC 357, (Para 20, 21)
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sajjad Husain, the
learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Hari
Shanker Vajpayee, the learned A.G.A.-I for
the State, as well perused the material
available on record.

2. By means of the present appeal
under Section 372 Cr.P.C., the appellant,
Javed Alam, has challenged the judgment
and order dated 21.02.2023 passed by
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge-I,
Ambedkar Nagar in Session Trial No. 281
of 2016, State Vs. Ram Pratap Yadav and
others, arising out of Case Crime No. 83 of
2016, under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 504,
506 I.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District
Ambedkar Nagar, acquitting the opposite
party Nos. 1 & 2 from the charges under
Section 308/34 I.P.C. framed against them
and convicting them for the offence under
Sections 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
releasing them on furnishing personal bond
of Rs. 30,000/- each for probation period.

3. According to the prosecution version,
on 18.03.2016 at about 11:00 a.m. when the
son of complainant, namely, Javed Alam
(present appellant) was coming to his house
dragging a cart which was laden by mustard
crops, then the fennel crops standing in the
field of opposite party No. 1-Ram Pratap, got
stuck, on account of which the accused
persons started abusing him, thereafter, when
the son of complainant was going to his field
again for taking crops, the accused persons
including
Sudhanshu
and
Kaushalya
surrounded him and assaulted him by lathi,
danda and iron rod. On shrieks when the
complainant and his family members reached
at the spot the accused persons fled away
from there while threatening the complainant
and his other family members. On this
written report the case was registered by the
police against the accused persons. After the
case was committed, the accused persons in
their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
denied their guilt and claimed to be tried.

4. The court below after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and evidence available on record,
passed the impugned judgment and order
dated 21.02.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits court below did not appreciate the
evidence
on
record,
prosecution
has
successfully proved the offence against the
accused on the basis of evidence and the
impugned judgment was passed without
considering the statement of witnesses and
the case set up by the prosecution and was
passed on surmises and conjectures.

6. Learned A.G.A.-I submits that there
appears no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order passed by the
trial court, therefore, the present appeal may
be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for
the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and
gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the trial court.

8. In the present case from the
statements given by the witnesses produced
by the prosecution including the injury
report of the injured, I found that
prosecution has failed to establish that the
crime in question has been committed by
the accused. There appears no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned judgment and
order, which is before this Court.

9. Further, this Court observed that an
appeal against acquittal stands on a
7 All. Javed Alam Vs. Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors.
23
different footing from the appeal 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:

"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."

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 appeal
and accordingly, no interference is called
for.
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Accordingly, the present appeal is
dismissed.

14. No order as to costs.

15. Copy of this judgment be sent to
the court below for its compliance.

16. Lower court record, if any, be
returned back to the court concerned.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 24
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1041 of 2001

Ganga Prasad & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
M.C. Yadav, Anil Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860-
Section 363 - Appeal against conviction -
Rigorous imprisonment - Complainant St.d
in F.I.R. that his son was married to
daughter of accused but due to some
dispute, his daughter-in-law was residing
at residence of accused and not coming to
reside with his son - One month before
date of incident, appelants extended
threat that they will kidnap complainant's
daughter
-
On
28.05.1994
when
complainant's daughter, was going to
bring articles of breakfast, appellants
enticed his daughter and took her away
with them - Victim's age was 11 years,
complainant searched but could not trace
out - After investigation, charge-sheet
submitted - On basis of evidence, trial
court convicted them. (Para 2, 4, 6)

Held, F.I.R. lodged after 19 days of
incident - P.W. 1, victim's mother in her
testimony deposed she was recovered
after 15-20 days from date of incident
whereas P.W. 2, victim St.d she remained
in house of accused only for 9-10 days,
thereafter appellants took her to Lucknow
and came back to her house - P.W. 4,
victim's sister deposed when she was not
traceable then her father lodged F.I.R. and
after 25 days she came back parent's
house - Contradictions in testimonies
when seen along with entire facts and
circumstances of case, becomes vital -
Probability
of
false
implication
of
appellants as there was dispute between
family of complainant and accused -
Impugned order set aside. (Para 17, 18,
21)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing
for Appellant No. 2, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the
State and perused the record.

2. I find from the record that
Appellant No.1 has already died and the
present appeal in respect of Appellant No.1
has already been dismissed as abated vide
order dated 26.02.2020 passed by this
Court.

3. Appellant No.2 through present
appeal has challenged judgment and order
dated 06.11.2001 passed by 9th Additional
Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Session Trial
No. 744 of 1996 (State Vs. Ganga Prasad
& Anr.) whereby Appellant No. 2 has been
convicted for offence punishable under
Section 363 IPC and has been sentenced for
rigorous imprisonment of five years with