# Ramji Sharan Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-26
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramji-sharan-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45390
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code
(2 of 1974) - Section 372 - Appeal
against acquittal - power of appellate
court to interfere with acquittal - cardinal
principle - if two views on appreciation of
evidence are reasonably possible, one
supporting acquittal & other conviction,
Appellate Court should not reverse the
order of acquittal - appellate court may
overrule or disturb trial court's acquittal
only if it has "very substantial and
compelling reasons" for doing so - and for
that Appellate Court must come to the
conclusion that the findings of the Court
below are not based on the evidence on
record, or suffers from misreading of
evidence - or that the view taken by the
court below, while acquitting cannot be
the view of a reasonable person (Para 32,
34, 35 )

Allegation that respondents eight in number
grabbed prosecutrix & thrashed her while she
going to the police station to register a criminal
case
concerning
the
earlier
incident
of
molestation - Held - difficult to believe that eight
persons jointly beat up the prosecutrix with
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sticks, rods & other blunt objects, but only
minor injuries of contusion occurred and no
fracture, abrasion caused on the body of P.W. 1
- Injuries inflicted on the prosecutrix not
proportionate to the alleged severity of violence
-
no
independent
witness
adduced
to
corroborate FIR version - statement of daughter
in contradiction to the statement of the P.W. 1
(prosecutrix) - Important witness not brought in
witness box - probability of election enmity
cannot be ruled out - no substantial &
compelling reason to reverse the order of
acquittal passed by the trial court (Para 31, 32,
36)

Appeal Dismissed (E- 5)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

11 All. Ramji Sharan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
hurt/voluntarily causing grievous hurt as
embodied u/s 323 and 325 of IPC are alike
the main ingredient of Section 326 IPC i.e
voluntarily causing grievous hurt, which
was one of the offence under trial, and after
careful
consideration
of
fact
and
circumstances of the case trial court had
rightly convicted the accused for an offence
of lesser gravity, which has been proved by
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
No prejudice can be said to have been
caused to either side owing to non framing
of charges under the sections under which
punishment for the offence of lesser gravity
has been awarded.

41. We are of the considered view,
after perusing the impugned order and
analyzing the circumstances of the case,
that the trial court has rightly convicted the
accused for commission of the offences u/s
323/34, 325/34 and 506 I.P.C. on account
of the injuries sustained by the informant
(P.W.1) and his servant Bajrangi Lal
(P.W.2). Other offences of graver nature,
qua the charges framed, are not proved
beyond reasonable doubt satisfying their
statutory elements. There is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned judgment passed
by court below warranting interference of
this court in an appeal filed on behalf of the
informant. We find no good ground to alter
or modify the impugned judgment for
conviction of the accused for the offences
of higher gravity.

42. Resultantly, the instant appeal is
dismissed being devoid of merits. Impugned
judgment and order dated 15.03.2016 passed
by the Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Court, Varanasi in S.T. No. 529 of 1999
(State of U.P. vs. Narendra Kumar Singh &
others) convicting the accused under Sections
323/34, 325/34, 506 I.P.C. is hereby
affirmed.
----------
(2020)11ILR A253
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 372 Cr.PC (Leave
to Appeal) No. 318 of 2019

Ramji Sharan Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Vivek Chaubey

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

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code
(2 of 1974) - Section 372 - Appeal
against acquittal - power of appellate
court to interfere with acquittal - cardinal
principle - if two views on appreciation of
evidence are reasonably possible, one
supporting acquittal & other conviction,
Appellate Court should not reverse the
order of acquittal - appellate court may
overrule or disturb trial court's acquittal
only if it has "very substantial and
compelling reasons" for doing so - and for
that Appellate Court must come to the
conclusion that the findings of the Court
below are not based on the evidence on
record, or suffers from misreading of
evidence - or that the view taken by the
court below, while acquitting cannot be
the view of a reasonable person (Para 32,
34, 35 )

Allegation that respondents eight in number
grabbed prosecutrix & thrashed her while she
going to the police station to register a criminal
case
concerning
the
earlier
incident
of
molestation - Held - difficult to believe that eight
persons jointly beat up the prosecutrix with
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sticks, rods & other blunt objects, but only
minor injuries of contusion occurred and no
fracture, abrasion caused on the body of P.W. 1
- Injuries inflicted on the prosecutrix not
proportionate to the alleged severity of violence
-
no
independent
witness
adduced
to
corroborate FIR version - statement of daughter
in contradiction to the statement of the P.W. 1
(prosecutrix) - Important witness not brought in
witness box - probability of election enmity
cannot be ruled out - no substantial &
compelling reason to reverse the order of
acquittal passed by the trial court (Para 31, 32,
36)

Appeal Dismissed (E- 5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. State of Karn. Vs K. Gopalkrishna (2005) 9
SCC 291
2. Sudershan Kumar Vs St. of Himachal (2014)
15 SCC 666

3. Dilawar Singh Vs St. of Har. (2015) 1 SCC
737

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vivek Chaubey, learned
counsel for the applicant/appellant on the
question of admission.

2. The instant appeal under Section
372
Cr.P.C.
has
been preferred
by
informant-Ramji
Sharan
Sharma
challenging the judgment and order dated
28.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge,
Prevention of Corruption Act/Additional
Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Special Case No.
155 of 2007 (CNR No. UPJS01-0001602007), State vs. Briju @ Brijesh Sharma
and 07 others, acquitting six accusedrespondents namely Suresh (respondent
no.2),
Sunil
(respondent no.3),
Raju
(respondent no.4), Smt. Genda (respondent
no. 5), Smt. Sandhya (respondent no.6) and
Smt. Sheela (respondent no.7), for the
alleged commission of offences under
sections 147, 452, 354, 294, 270, 341, 342,
323, 395 and 412 IPC.

3. The trial commenced against eight
(08) accused persons, out of them case of
Satish son of Suresh Sharma was separated
being juvenile and he had been tried
separately by the Juvenile Justice Board.
By the impugned judgment only one
accused Briju was convicted and the
remaining six accused have been acquitted,
who are arrayed as respondents in the
present appeal.

4. As per the version of the First
Information Report (hereinafter referred to
as "FIR"), co-villager Briju @ Brijesh
Sharma barged into the house of Ramji
Sharan Sharma (informant) on 08.09.2007
at about 9:00 a.m. and molested his wife,
while she was alone in the house. His
daughter (PW-3), went outside to take
water from the hand pump. She had
immediately rushed to the house hearing
screams of her mother and tried to save her.
The accused had flailed her daughter as
well and fled away. While his wife and
daughter were going to the Police Station,
BHEL to get the occurrence registered,
Briju
@
Brijesh
Sharma
and
his
accomplices namely Suresh, Sunil, Raju
and Satish had surrounded and flogged
them on the periphery of the village. The
accused then brought them naked in the
village, paraded them and filled their
mouths with cow-dung and forced them to
drink sewage water and hit their private
parts as well. His wife and daughter had
narrated all these facts to him. The
informant, along with his daughter, went to
the police station and described the incident
to the Police Inspector who, in turn,
reached the village. Taking the Maxi
(dress) of his wife, the informant also went
to the village and again came back to the
11 All. Ramji Sharan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255
police station along with his wife. From
there, police personnel had sent his wife
and daughter for medical examination. He
admitted
his
wife
in
the
District
Government Hospital.

5. Describing all these facts, initially,
the informant had moved an application
dated 09.09.2007 (which is treated as
written report marked as Ext. Ka-1) before
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi.
He had passed the order on the said
application to register a case and to take
legal action against the accused persons. In
compliance
thereof,
concerned
police
station had lodged the F.I.R. On 09.09.2007
registered as Case Crime No. 133 of 2007
(Ext. Ka-2) under Sections 147, 452, 354,
294, 270, 341, 342 & 323 IPC, against five
(05) persons namely Briju @ Brijesh
Sharma, Suresh, Sunil, Satish and Raju.

6. In further development, on
11.09.2007 at about 21:10 hours, police had
arrested Sunil and Satish in connection
with another Case Crime No. 591 of 2007
under Sections 147, 452, 454, 494, 270,
341, 342, 323 & 395 IPC, Police Station
Babina, District Jhansi and recovered
mobile phone looted from the present
prosecutrix and two currency notes of
Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- (one each) from the
possession of Satish.

7. After investigation, the Investigating
Officer had prepared the site map (Ext. Ka-5)
and filed the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-7) against
eight (08) persons namely Briju @ Brijesh
Sharma, Suresh, Sunil, Raju, Satish, Smt.
Genda, Smt. Sandhya and Smt. Sheela
respectively under Sections 147, 452, 354,
294, 270, 341, 342, 323, 395 and 412 IPC.

8. On their appearance, accused had
been served with the police report and
other documents under Section 207
Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court had
framed
charges
against
seven
(07)
accused persons (including Briju and
respondents herein), vide order dated
10.04.2009 under Sections 147, 452, 354,
294, 270, 341, 342, 323, 395 and 412
IPC. Prosecutrix (PW-1) and her daughter
(PW-3) had been taken to the hospital by
the police and were medically examined
by Dr. Ajay Saxena (PW-6) who had
prepared and signed the injury report of
the prosecutrix (Ext. Ka-9) and the
medical/injury report of her daughter
(Ext. Ka-8). In the medical report of the
daughter (Ext. Ka-8), only one injury had
been shown as contusion on the upper
portion of the shoulder but in the injury
report of the prosecutrix, 06 injuries had
been shown. The doctor has opined that
these injuries were inflicted prior 6 to 8
hours and could have been caused by
blunt object. The injuries shown in the
medical report of PW-1 is noted below :-

"१.छात के प छे बािंय ओर न लगू
सूिन ६सेम ०X २ सेम ० र ढ़ क हड्ड से ३ सेम ०
िूर पर थ ।

२. छात के बािंय ओर न लगू सूि १
सेम ०X२ सेम ० िो प्क चोट सिं०-१ के ३ सेम ०
न चे थ ।

३. एब्डोमन पर न चे क तरफ एविं
प छे क तरफ न लगू प्निान ४ सेम ०X२सेम ०
ब चे में,

४. बािंये Buttock पर न लगू सूिन १९
सेम ०X १८ सेम ० िो प्क िािंघ के प्पछले प्हस्से
तक गई थ ।

५. िाप्हने Buttock पर न लगू सूिन
१७ सेम ०X१२ सेम ० पर प्मल ।

६. बािंय टािंग के प छे क ओर न लगू
सूिन १० सेम ०X३ सेम ० एविं घुटने से ६ सेम ०
न चे।"
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. So as to hold the accused guilty,
prosecution had examined as many as 07
witnesses, out of them 03 are the witnesses
of fact and remaining are formal witnesses.

10. (PW-1) Prosecutrix (wife of
Informant) has stated that the incident took
place on 08.07.2007 at 9:00 a.m. Her
daughter went to fetch water from the
government hand pump installed in front of
the house and at the same time Briju @
Brijesh Sharma barged into the house and
started molesting her. While she raised alarm,
her daughter immediately rushed into the
house and tried to save her. Accused Briju @
Brijesh Sharma had kicked, punched and
flailed them and went away from the house.
While she and her daughter were going to the
Police Station, BHEL, to get the occurrence
reported, Briju @ Brijesh Sharma and his
accomplices namely Suresh, Sunil, Raju,
Satish, Genda, Sandhya & Sheela had
surrounded and flogged them on the
periphery of the village. Accused had made
them naked, filled their mouths with cowdung, forced them to drink sewage water, hit
their private parts as well and while beating
them up paraded them to their home. She
further stated that during this incident, they
had looted her mobile phone and currency
notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- (one each). At
the time of incident her husband was not
present in the home. She further stated that
due to fear, she could not tell her husband
about the event of looting mobile phone and
Rs.600/-, as well as the involvement of
Genda, Sandhya and Sheela in the crime
scene. After getting back to normal, she told
these facts to her husband, who took her and
her daughter by taxi, to the Police Station
BHEL, where-from the Police Inspector had
sent them to the hospital at Babina for
medical examination. On that day police did
not register the occurrence. Therefore, on the
following day, her husband had moved an
application dated 09.09.2007 before the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi for a
direction
to
register
a
criminal
case
concerning the incident in question. On the
direction of the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Jhansi, a criminal case was registered.
Next day, she was admitted in the District
Hospital, Jhansi for medical treatment.

11. (PW-2), Ramji Sharan Sharma
(informant) has narrated the same story as
mentioned in the F.I.R. According to his
statement, he was not present at the time of
incident and when he came to the house, he
had been informed by his wife and daughter
qua the incident. In his statement he has
supported the version of his wife (PW-1) qua
looting of mobile phone and Rs.600/- from
the prosecutrix and participation of 03 ladies
in the crime, whose names are mentioned in
the charge-sheet. He has proved his
application (written report) as Ext. Ka-1.

12. PW-3 is the daughter of PW-1 &
PW-2. She has repeated the sequence of
occurrence as narrated by her parents. She
has also narrated the event of looting mobile
phone and Rs.600/- from her mother and
involvement of 03 ladies in the crime.

13. (PW-4) Vidya Dhar, (Constable
Clerk) has proved the Chik F.I.R. as Ext.
Ka-2. He has also stated that he had
endorsed the occurrence in G.D. at Rapat
No. 14 at 16:20 hours, dated 09.09.2007.
He has stated that original G.D. had been
weeded out as per the rules and he had
produced the weeding out certificate
issued from the office of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Jhansi and
proved the same as Ext. 'Ka-3'.

14. (PW-5), J.P.Shahi (S.H.O.) has
stated that initially investigation was
conducted by the earlier Inspector Rajesh
11 All. Ramji Sharan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
Chowdhary and after his sad demise, he has
taken the charge for further investigation.
He has verified the signature and hand
writing of earlier Investigating Officer,
Rajesh Chowdhary and proved the site map
as Ext. 'Ka-5' and the recovery map as Ext.
'Ka-6'. He has also proved the charge-sheet,
which has been submitted by him as Ext.
'Ka-7'.

15. (PW-6), Dr. Ajay Saxena,
deposed that on 08.09.2007 he was posted
as Medical Officer, C.H.C., Babina and had
medically examined PW-1 & PW-3. He has
proved the medical report of PW-3 as Ext.
'Ka-8' and also proved the medical report of
PW-1 as Ext. 'Ka-9'.

16. (PW-7), Constable, has verified
the signature and writing of the earlier
Investigating
Officer
late
Rajesh
Chowdhary.

17. In their statements under Section
313 Cr.P.C., accused persons had denied all
the allegations made against them and
stated that prosecution story is totally false
and baseless. No such incident took place
on the spot. They had never commissioned
such crime as alleged by the prosecution.
They had been falsely roped in the present
criminal case because of election antipathy
and claimed for trial on merits. In their
support, accused persons produced two
(02) defence witnesses.

18. (DW-1), Brij Mohan, had stated in
his cross-examination that neither any
scuffle took place with the prosecutrix in
the village on 08.09.2007 nor Briju @
Brijesh Sharma barged into her house. He
further stated that Brijesh Sharma, Raju,
Satish, Smt. Genda, Smt. Sandhya & Smt.
Sheela are well known to him and they are
neighbour in the village. House of Ramji
Sharan Sharma is situated in front of his
well. Neither any scuffle took place with
Ramji Sharan Sharma or his wife and
daughter in the village, nor anyone had
been molested or beaten them up.

19. (DW-2), Ashok, in his crossexamination had stated that no scuffle took
place with the prosecutrix on 08.09.2007
and all the accused persons are well known
to him who are co-villagers. House of
Ramji Sharan Sharma is situated after 5-6
houses from his house. No scuffling or
incident of molestation occurred with the
prosecutrix and her daughter.

20. After considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence
(documentary as well as oral), the trial
court had acquitted all the accused except
one Briju @ Brijesh Sharma who has been
convicted under Section 354, 242, 323
I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of
the present opposite parties/accused, the
informant has preferred the instant appeal
challenging the impugned judgement dated
28.5.2019.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the trial court has failed
to appreciate the evidene available on
record and the facts and circumstances of
the present case. He has further submitted
that the trial court has decided the matter in
a cursory manner, only on the basis of
conjectures and surmises. The statements
of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are fully
corroborating the prosecution case but the
same
have
been
misread
and
misinterpreted.
The
court below has
miserably failed to consider the injuries
sustained by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who are
victims of the incident. He has also
submitted that the prosecution story is
based on true facts but the trial court has
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
illegally acquitted the accused opposite
party nos. 2 to 7 without any rhyme and
reason.

22. We have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the
impugned judgement passed by the trial
court and also perused the record of the
Court below, summoned in compliance of
order dated 06.08.2019 passed by this
Court.

23. The FIR, as per the version
therein, consists of two incidents happened
at two different locations at different point
of time on the same day. The first incident
took place at the residence of the
prosecutrix, while she was alone at home
and her daughter was out to fetch water
from a government hand pump, the accused
entered the house and subjected her to
molestation and violence. On hearing her
screaming,
her
daughter
immediately
rushed to the house and tried to save her
mother but the accused had beaten up her
as well. The second incident took place on
the periphery of the village where accused
Briju @ Brijesh Sharma, Suresh, Sunil,
Raju, Satish, Smt. Genda, Smt. Sheela and
Smt. Sandhya had grabbed the prosecutrix
and her daughter and thrashed them while
they were going to the police station to
register a criminal case concerning the
earlier incident. After that, accused paraded
them naked in the village, filled their
mouths with cow-dung, forced them to
drink sewage water and hit on their private
parts as well while leaving the victims at
their house.

24. Treating both the incidents as a
chain of one crime, a holistic FIR had been
registered in compliance of the order
passed by the Senior Superintendent of
Police indicting five persons. The FIR
evinced the central involvement of accused
Briju
@
Brijesh
Sharma
in
the
accomplishment of both the incidents.
Whereas, participation of remaining four
accused had been shown only at the second
stage of occurrence. Later on, after
investigation, the names of three ladies
were also included namely, Smt. Genda,
Smt.
Sheela
and
Smt.
Sandhya.
Consequently, the trial had been concluded
against eight accused persons.

25. The trial court had convicted Briju
@ Brijesh Sharma for the commission of
crime under Section 354, 452, 323 I.P.C.,
whereas
acquitted
remaining
accused,
excluding the juvenile Satish, for the
alleged commission of a crime under
Section 147, 452, 294, 270, 341, 342, 323,
395 and 412 I.P.C.

26. No independent witness had been
produced on behalf of prosecution to
corroborate the version of the FIR. The
statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 evince the
presence of several persons at the time of
occurrence but it is astonishing that no
villager could be brought in the witness box
to support the case of the prosecution.

27. P.W. 1 (prosecutrix) has deposed
at page (7) that her 'Jethh' Hari Sharma
(elder brother of her husband) was sitting at
the doorstep of their house at the time of
occurrence. At page (8), she has deposed
that her house is situated at the central part
of the village and in front of her house,
there is a public road which starts with
commuting activities from dawn and on the
other side of the road, there is house of
Kishori Lal Ahirwar. There is traffic for the
whole day on the road. At the time of
incident i.e. 9:00 a.m. commuters were
passing through the said road but no one
11 All. Ramji Sharan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
had heard her screams. She was alone in
the house. As per deposition made by P.W.
3, several persons were present at the place
of the hand pump from where she was
fetching water and when her mother
screamed she alone rushed to the house and
no other person followed her. She has
further deposed that at the time of
occurrence, no other family member was
present there. In this view of the matter, the
statement of P.W. 3 is in contradiction to
the statement of the P.W. 1 who has stated
that her brother-in-law (Jethh) was sitting
at the doorstep of the house. It is
astonishing and ridiculous that Hari Sharma
(elder
brother
of
the
husband
of
prosecutrix), who was present at the time of
occurrence, had not been brought in the
witness box though he could be an
important/ocular witness to corroborate the
prosecution case. There is no whisper in the
statement of PW-1 that her Jeth had come
to their rescue or he had entered the house
hearing her screams. In the light of the
defence taken by the accused, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case,
probability of election enmity cannot be
ruled out. After considering the statement
of P.W. 1 and the statement of accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial court
came to the conclusion that at the relevant
time one daughter-in-law of the family of
the accused was village Pradhan.

28. In the FIR, all three ladies
(opposite party nos. 5 to 7) were not
named. Indicting them at belated stage,
creates doubt with regard to the factum of
occurrence as mentioned in the written
report (Ext. Ka-1). The prosecutrix (P.W.
1) has given an excuse that initially she
could not take the names of three ladies
(accused) but later on, after recovering
from the shock, she had mentioned their
involvement. The aforesaid excuse given
by the prosecutrix is ridiculous, inasmuch
as, the incident took place at 9 a.m. on
8.9.2007 and, thereafter, for the whole day
she,
along
with
her
husband,
was
wandering on way to the police station,
village and hospital. On the next day i.e. on
09.09.2007,
her
husband
moved
an
application to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Jhansi for getting the criminal case
registered. It is astonishing that after even
lapse of more than 24 hours, she did not
mention the name of three ladies in the
F.I.R. registered on the directions of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, who were
allegedly involved in her harassment and
beating
her
daughter.
The
aforesaid
conduct of P.W.1 creates serious doubt
with respect to the truthfulness of the
second incident in which three ladies were
said to be participated.

29. That apart, in the scene of second
incident, five male persons were already
present with blunt objects to beat P.W. 1
and P.W. 3. In that situation, probability of
the presence of three ladies with intention
to participate in the aforesaid incident,
becomes very less. It appears that name of
three ladies had been indicted to exaggerate
the severity of the crime, as put forth by the
prosecution.

30. Dr. Ajay Saxena (P.W. 6) opined
that injuries inflicted on the persons of
P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 could be caused by
blunt objects. The prosecution came
forward with the case that prosecutrix and
her daughter had been badly thrashed
twice. For the first time, they had been
beaten up by Briju @ Brijesh Sharma
inside their house and second time they had
been beaten up by Briju @ Brijesh Sharma
and his accomplices (accused opposite
parties (including juvenile Satish) on the
periphery of the village while duo were
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
going to lodge the FIR. As per the medical
report, P.W. 3 had sustained one injury on
the upper portion of her shoulder which is
contusion, whereas P.W. 1 had sustained
six injuries and all are contusions. Seeing
the nature of injuries, all general in nature,
it would be difficult to believe that duo had
been beaten up by the accused twice with
stick and other blunt objects. Dr. Saxena
opined that injury on the body of P.W. 3
could be caused because of falling down. In
the X-ray report of the prosecutrix, no
grave injury has been shown.

31. In light of aforesaid surrounding
circumstances, it is difficult to believe that
eight persons had jointly beaten up the
prosecutrix and her daughter, and that too,
with the help of sticks, rods and other blunt
objects,
but
only minor
injuries
of
contusion had occurred and no fracture, cut
or abrasion had been caused on the body of
P.W. 1 and P.W. 3.

32. The whole facts and the
surrounding circumstances are, thus, not
supporting the case of the prosecution with
respect to participation of the opposite
parties/accused in the crime which occurred
at second stage on the same day i.e.
8.9.2007. In criminal law, the prosecution
has to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubts while the defence has to prove its
case on the touch stone of preponderance of
probability. In the present matter, no
independent witness had been adduced to
corroborate
the
prosecution
version.
Injuries inflicted on the prosecutrix and her
daughter, as shown in the medical report
are not proportionate to the severity of
violence which took place at two stages of
the
incident
as
portrayed
by
the
prosecution. In the written report five
persons have been indicted. But later on,
number of accused has been increased up to
eight on the basis of the statement made by
P.W. 1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No
evidence had been adduced to prove the
incident of loot of mobile and cash from
P.W. 1. Defence witnesses Brijmohan
(D.W. 1) and Ashok (D.W. 2), who are covillagers, have clearly denied the incident.
The statement of the accused given under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. with respect to the
election enmity between the parties appears
to be credible. Hari Sharma, elder brother
of her husband who could be an important
witness being present at the time of
occurrence has not been brought in the
witness box.

33. While considering the scope of
interference in an appeal or revision against
acquittal, it is noted that the Supreme Court
has held that if two views on appreciation
of the evidence are reasonably possible,
one supporting the acquittal and other
indicating conviction, the High Court
should not, in such a situation, reverse the
order of acquittal recorded by the Trial
Court. In the matter of State of Karnataka
vs. K. Gopalkrishna reported in (2005) 9
SCC 291, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, observed as under:

"In such an appeal the Appellate
Court does not lightly disturb the findings
of fact recorded by the Court below. If on
the basis of the same evidence, two views
are reasonably possible, and the view
favouring the accused is accepted by the
Court below, that is sufficient for upholding
the order of acquittal. However, if the
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion
that the findings of the Court below are
wholly unreasonable or perverse and not
based on the evnidence on record, or
suffers from serious illegality including
ignorance or misreading of evidence on
11 All. Ramji Sharan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261
record, the Appellate Court will be justified
in setting aside such an order of acquittal."

34. In Sudershan Kumar v. State of
Himachal reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:-

"31. It has been stated and
restated that a cardinal principle in
criminal jurisprudence that presumption of
innocence of the accused is reinforced by
an order of the acquittal. The appellate
court, in such a case, would interfere only
for very substantial and compelling reason.
There is plethora of case laws on this
proposition and we need not burden this
judgment by referring to those decisions.
Our purpose would be served by referring
to one reasoned pronouncement entitled
Dhanapal v. State which is the judgment
where most of the earlier decisions laying
down the aforesaid principle are referred
to. In para 37, propositions laid down in an
earlier case are taken note of as under:

"37. In Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka reported in (2005) 9 SCC 291,
this Court held:

(1) An appellate court has full
power
to
review,
re-appreciate
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.

(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."

32. Thereafter, in para 39, the
Court curled out five principles and we would
like to reproduce the said para hereunder:

"39.
The
following
principles
emerge from the cases above:

(1) The accused is presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty. The accused
possessed this presumption when he was
before the trial court. The trial court's
acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is
innocent.

(2) The power of reviewing
evidence is wide and the appellate court
can re-appreciate the entire evidence on
record. It can review the trial court's
conclusion with respect to both facts and
law, but the Appellate Court must give due
weight and consideration to the decision of
the trial court.

(3) The appellate court should
always keep in mind that the trial court had
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the distinct advantage of watching the
demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court
is in a better position to evaluate the
credibility of the witnesses.

(4) The appellate court may only
overrule or otherwise disturb the trial
court's acquittal if it has "very substantial
and compelling reasons" for doing so.
(5) If two reasonable or possible views can
be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the
other
to
conviction
-
the
High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour
of the accused."

35. In Dilawar Singh v State of
Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737, the Supreme
Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36
and 37 as under:

"36. The court of appeal would
not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by
manifest illegality. In an appeal against
acquittal, this Court will not interfere with
an order of acquittal merely because on the
evaluation of the evidence, a different
plausible view may arise and views taken
by the courts below is not correct. In other
words, this Court must come to the
conclusion that the views taken by the
learned courts below, while acquitting,
cannot be the views of a reasonable person
on the material on record."

36. We are of the considered view, after
analyzing
the
facts
and
surrounding
circumstances of the case and perusal of
record, that the trial court has rightly
acquitted the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 who
had been shown to have participated in the
second stage of crime on the periphery of the
village as the deposition of prosecution
witnesses in that regard do not inspires
confidence of the Court. No unimpeachable
evidence
had
been
adduced
by
the
prosecution to prove its accusations. In such a
situation of fact, accused opposite parties are
entitled to get benefit of doubt and their
innocence could easily be inferred. Apart
from that, prosecution itself has failed to
prove its accusations beyond all reasonable
doubts. The presence of ladies in the
commission of crime at the second stage is
also doubtful. All the statutory elements, as
required in the commission of crime under
sections 147, 452, 344, 294, 341, 342, 323,
315 and 412 I.P.C. are lacking. There is no
substantial and compelling reason to reverse
the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has failed
to point out any illegality, infirmity or
discrepancies in the impugned judgement
passed by the trial court.

37. Resultantly, the present appeal is
dismissed at the admission stage itself. The
impugned
judgement
dated
28.05.2019
passed by the trial court in Special Case No.
155 of 2007 (CNR No. UPJS01-0001602007), State vs. Briju @ Brijesh Sharma and
other is hereby affirmed.
----------
(2020)11ILR A262
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.11.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Arbitration Application No. 17 of 2019
connected with
Arbitration Application No. 18 of 2019
& other connected cases

Ms. Motilal & Sons ...Applicant
Versus
M.D. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories
Federation Ltd. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
-----