# Rajan @ Raja Ram & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 550
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 756 of 2020
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajan-raja-ram-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47272
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 326/34 , 504 & 506 - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 374 - Appeals from convictions -
Duties of the Appellate Court - In an
appeal from a judgment of conviction, the
Appellate Court is required not only to
review,
but
re-appreciate
the
entire
evidence on record afresh, and determine
for itself, whether the prosecution have
succeeded in establishing the charge
against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt - Contrary to what the Appellate
Court has said - if two views of the
evidence
are
possible,
certainly
the
Appellate Court is duty bound to take the
view that favours the accused. (Para - 6 )

It is a case, where the two revisionists have
been tried and convicted by the Magistrate -
offence punishable under Section 326 read with
Section 34 IPC - acquitted by the Magistrate of
8 All. Rajan @ Raja Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
551
offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506
IPC - Criminal Appeal before Additional District
and Sessions Judge - dismissed - affirming a
judgment and order of conviction - hence
criminal revision.(Para -1,3)

HELD:- Appellate Court has not yet discharged
its sacrosanct duties of doing a complete
independent re-appraisal of evidence, it is not
for this Court to put a terminus to the
proceedings. Case must go back to the
Appellate Court for determination of the appeal
afresh, after setting aside the impugned
judgment. Pending appeal, the revisionists were
on bail and were taken into custody when their
appeal was dismissed. Not admitted to bail by
this Court, pending revision and are in jail.
Entitled to remain on bail, pending a re-hearing
of their appeal.(Para - 7,8)

Criminal Revision partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Provisions for food, clothing,
shelter, education, medical attendance and
treatment, etc. of the applicant.

8. Payment capacity of the nonapplicant.

9. Some guesswork is not ruled
out while estimating the income of the nonapplicant when all the sources or correct
sources are not disclosed.

10. The non-applicant to defray
the cost of litigation.

11. The amount awarded under
Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against the
amount awarded under Section 24 of the
Act.

13. In Rajnesh, it has been held that
maintenance is to be awarded from the date
of application made to the Family Court,
bearing in mind the total in-hand monthly
salary received by the husband on the one
hand and his liabilities towards other
dependent family members on the other.
Going by the entitlement of the wife to
maintain herself by the same standard of
living that she would have enjoyed in her
husband's household, it would meet the
ends of justice to enhance the maintenance
awarded from a sum of Rs.7000/- to
Rs.9000/- per month, payable from the date
of application.

14. In the result, this revision,
succeeds and is allowed in part. The
impugned judgment and order passed by
the
Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
Kaushambi is modified to the extent that
the revisionist is held entitled to receive in
maintenance a sum of Rs.9000/- per month,
payable by the second opposite party from
the date of application.

15. Let this order be communicated to
the
Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
Kaushambi by the Registrar (Compliance).

16. Let the lower court records be sent
down at once.
----------
(2021)08ILR A550
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 756 of 2020

Rajan @ Raja Ram & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Nirbhay Singh, Sri A.K.S. Bais

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 326/34 , 504 & 506 - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 374 - Appeals from convictions -
Duties of the Appellate Court - In an
appeal from a judgment of conviction, the
Appellate Court is required not only to
review,
but
re-appreciate
the
entire
evidence on record afresh, and determine
for itself, whether the prosecution have
succeeded in establishing the charge
against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt - Contrary to what the Appellate
Court has said - if two views of the
evidence
are
possible,
certainly
the
Appellate Court is duty bound to take the
view that favours the accused. (Para - 6 )

It is a case, where the two revisionists have
been tried and convicted by the Magistrate -
offence punishable under Section 326 read with
Section 34 IPC - acquitted by the Magistrate of
8 All. Rajan @ Raja Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
551
offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506
IPC - Criminal Appeal before Additional District
and Sessions Judge - dismissed - affirming a
judgment and order of conviction - hence
criminal revision.(Para -1,3)

HELD:- Appellate Court has not yet discharged
its sacrosanct duties of doing a complete
independent re-appraisal of evidence, it is not
for this Court to put a terminus to the
proceedings. Case must go back to the
Appellate Court for determination of the appeal
afresh, after setting aside the impugned
judgment. Pending appeal, the revisionists were
on bail and were taken into custody when their
appeal was dismissed. Not admitted to bail by
this Court, pending revision and are in jail.
Entitled to remain on bail, pending a re-hearing
of their appeal.(Para - 7,8)

Criminal Revision partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Lal Mandi Vs St. of W.B., (1995) 3 SCC 603.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This criminal revision is directed
against the judgment and order of Mr.
Vikas Goswami, the IVth Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Kasganj dated
13.01.2020, dismissing Criminal Appeal
no.12 of 2018 and affirming a judgment
and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the Magistrate against the
revisionists for an offence punishable under
Section 326/34 IPC.

2. Heard Mr. A.K.S. Bais, Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Nirbhay Singh, learned
Counsel for the revisionists and Mr. S.S.
Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf
of the State.

3. Looking to the short point involved
in this revision, it would not be apposite to
set out in detail the prosecution case or the
evidence. It is a case, where the two
revisionists have been tried and convicted
by the Magistrate for an offence punishable
under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC
and
sentenced
to
suffer
rigorous
imprisonment for a term of three years each
and a fine of Rs.3000/-. In default, each of
the revisionists have been sentenced to
undergo
three
months'
rigorous
imprisonment. They were acquitted by the
Magistrate of offences punishable under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC.

4. The submission of Mr. A.K.S.
Bais, Advocate holding brief of Mr.
Nirbhay Singh, learned Counsel for the
revisionists is that the Appellate Court has
not discharged its duties under the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code')
to do a wholesome review of the evidence
on record and has perfunctorily upheld the
conviction.
Mr.
S.S.
Tiwari,
learned
A.G.A., on the other hand, has said that the
Appellate Court has done a complete
survey of the evidence led at the trial and
expressed his concurrence with the Trial
Court. Mr. Tiwari submits that being a
judgment of affirmation, the Appellate
Court was not required to do a detailed reanalysis or an analysis of the entire
evidence on record afresh. He, therefore,
supports the impugned judgment and says
that there is no scope for this Court to
interfere in the present revision against the
concurrent judgments of the two Courts of
fact below. The only point that arises for
determination in this revision is about the
duties of the Appellate Court under Section
374 of the Code, while hearing and
determining an appeal from a judgment of
conviction.

5. This Court has carefully perused
the impugned judgment and the record as
well. It is true that the Appellate Court has
not done any reassessment of evidence
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
afresh, but has merely surveyed it. That the
Appellate has done by detailing the
evidence in the judgment. There is hardly
any appraisal done by the Appellate Court
to find out for itself, whether the
prosecution have successfully established
the charge against the revisionists, of which
they have been convicted by the Trial
Court. Rather, the Appellate Court has
expressed its agreement with the Magistrate
with remarks to the effect that a criminal
appeal can be accepted only if it is shown
that the Trial Court has committed any
error of fact or law that is manifest, or
ignored evidence on record and passed a
wrong and illegal order. The Appellate
Court has further remarked that a criminal
appeal cannot be allowed solely on the
ground that a different view of the evidence
is possible. The crux of the learned
Sessions Judge's determination in appeal is
expressed in the following words in the
judgment impugned:

"यह मिमि का सुथथामपत मसद्धान्त है
मक मकसी अपील िें, अपील का मनस्ारण करने
के सिय अपील तभी स्वीकार की जा सकती है
जि मिद्वान अिर न्यायालय के आदेश िें ऐसी
कोई गलती, मिमि तथ्यों की स्पितः दमशात हो
मक पत्रािली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य को अनदेखा
करके गलत ि अिैि रूप से आदेश पाररत
मकया गया केिल इस आिार पर मक उपलब्ध
साक्ष्य के आिार पर दूसरा दृमिकोण भी सम्भि
है। इस आिार पर अपील स्वीकार नहीं की जा
सकती।"

6. The way, the Appellate Court has
opined about the law relating to the duties
of the Appellate Court, while hearing an
appeal from a judgment of conviction, it
has gone utterly wrong. In an appeal from a
judgment of conviction, the Appellate
Court is required not only to review, but reappreciate the entire evidence on record
afresh, and determine for itself, whether the
prosecution have succeeded in establishing
the charge against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. Contrary to what the
Appellate Court has said, if two views of
the evidence are possible, certainly the
Appellate Court is duty bound to take the
view that favours the accused. This is in
keeping with the presumption of innocence
of the accused and the jurisdiction that
Court
exercises
in
an
appeal
from
conviction, where the entire case is at large
for a plenary re-appraisal. The parameters,
by which the Appellate Court has judged
the revisionists' appeal, would be those
applicable to a Court of revision or may be
to the Appellate Court in some measure, if
it were hearing an appeal from a judgment
of acquittal; not of conviction. In this
connection, reference may be made to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Lal
Mandi v. State of W.B., (1995) 3 SCC
603. In Lal Mandi, it has been held by
their Lordships:

"5. To say the least, the approach
of the High Court is totally fallacious. In an
appeal against conviction, the appellate
court has the duty to itself appreciate the
evidence on the record and if two views are
possible on the appraisal of the evidence,
the benefit of reasonable doubt has to be
given to an accused. It is not correct to
suggest that the "Appellate Court cannot
legally interfere with" the order of
conviction where the trial court has found
the evidence as reliable and that it cannot
substitute the findings of the Sessions
Judge by its own, if it arrives at a different
conclusion
on
reassessment
of
the
evidence. The observation made in Tota
Singh case [(1987) 2 SCC 529 : 1987 SCC
(Cri) 381 : AIR 1987 SC 1083] , which was
an appeal against acquittal, have been
8 All. Hansraj Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
553
misunderstood and mechanically applied.
Though, the powers of an appellate court,
while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal and an appeal against conviction
are equally wide but the considerations
which weigh with it while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal and in
an appeal against conviction are distinct
and
separate.
The
presumption
of
innocence of an accused which gets
strengthened on his acquittal is not
available on his conviction. An appellate
court may give every reasonable weight to
the conclusions arrived at by the trial court
but it must be remembered that an appellate
court is duty-bound, in the same way as the
trial court, to test the evidence extrinsically
as well as intrinsically and to consider as
thoroughly as the trial court, all the
circumstances available on the record so as
to arrive at an independent finding
regarding guilt or innocence of the convict.
An appellate court fails in the discharge of
one of its essential duties, if it fails to itself
appreciate the evidence on the record and
arrive at an independent finding based on
the appraisal of such evidence........"

7. In the opinion of this Court, the
Appellate Court has gone utterly wrong about
the standard, by which it had to judge the
revisionists' appeal. The impugned judgment
cannot, therefore, be sustained. However,
since the Appellate Court has not yet
discharged its sacrosanct duties of doing a
complete
independent
re-appraisal
of
evidence, it is not for this Court to put a
terminus to the proceedings. The case must
go back to the Appellate Court for
determination of the appeal afresh, after
setting aside the impugned judgment. It must
also be noticed that pending appeal, the
revisionists were on bail and were taken into
custody when their appeal was dismissed.
They were not admitted to bail by this Court,
pending revision and are in jail. They are
entitled to remain on bail, pending a rehearing of their appeal, upon furnishing such
bail bonds and sureties as the Appellate Court
may direct, and which the Appellate Court
shall do forthwith.

8. In the result, this revision succeeds
and is allowed in part. The impugned
judgment and order dated 13.01.2020 passed
by the learned IVth Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kasganj in Criminal Appeal
no.12 of 2018 is hereby set aside. The appeal
shall stand restored to the file of the
Appellate Court with a direction to re-hear
and determine the appeal within six months
next, in accordance with law. Pending appeal,
the revisionists shall be released on bail
forthwith on furnishing such bail bonds and
sureties as the Appellate Court may direct.

9. Let a copy of this judgment be
certified to the Appellate Court by the office
and also communicated by the Registrar
(Compliance).

10. Let the lower court records be sent
down at once.
----------
(2021)08ILR A553
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 864 of 2020

Hansraj Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Sri Pankaj
Kumar