# Satyapal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 401
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal U/S 413 BNSS No. 609 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajeev Misra, Dr. Ajay Kumar-Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyapal-v-state-of-u-p-52930
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,914 of 46,050. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39914 for what follows._

12 All. Satyapal Vs. State of U.P.
401
were returning home, on the way at 12
noon they saw the incident taking place that
nine accused persons, sitting in a four
wheeler Bolero vehicle, with intention to
kill the deceased, laid the deceased on the
road and killed him, is not reliable in any
way. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2
does not support the prosecution. The
prosecution story is not found to be beyond
any reasonable doubt by their evidence.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges levelled against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

50. So far as the veracity of above
reasons recorded by Court below to
conclude that the guilt of accused does not
stand established beyond reasonable doubt
also cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.
The findings/reasons returned by Court
below are based upon due evaluation of
allegations made in the complaint in the
light of evidence on record. Court below
has assigned specific reasons for coming to
the conclusion that no offence under any of
charging Section is made out against
accused. Upon examination by us of the
said findings in the light of depositions of
the prosecution witnesses as noted in the
impugned judgment, we could not come
across any such fact on the basis of which,
any of the findings qua the charging
sections recorded by Court below can be
said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. As
such, the conclusion drawn by Court below
that no criminality as alleged to have been
committed by the accused-opposite parties
2 to 9 is borne out from the record is
neither illegal nor perverse. Therefore,
question
no.iv
is
answered
in
the
affirmative.

51. In view of the discussion made
above, we do not find any perversity in the
judgment so as to interfere with the
findings returned by Court below. The
conclusion drawn by Court below is the
outcome of due appreciation of evidence on
record. No misreading or omission could be
pointed out by the learned counsel for
appellant. Being the last Court of fact, we
have ourselves evaluated the evidence on
record to find out whether there is any
perversity in the impugned judgment or
Court below has misconstrued any material
evidence. However, we could not gather
any such fact from the record so as to
conclude that the conclusion drawn by
Court below is against the weight of
evidence on record. It thus, cannot be said
that only the view consistent with the guilt
of accused is possible as per the evidence
on record. We, therefore, do not find any
good ground to entertain the present appeal
filed under Section 413 BNSS, which
consequently fails and is, accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 401
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Criminal Appeal U/S 413 BNSS No. 609 of 2025

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

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to appeal against acquittal -
Whether conclusion drawn by Court below that
prosecution has failed to prove that deceased
sustained
any
firearm
injury
is
legally
sustainable; and whether reasons recorded by
Court below in support of its conclusion that
prosecution has failed to establish guilt of
accused beyond reasonable doubt are cogent
and valid or perverse. (Paras 19, 20-21, 22-23)
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
Criminal appeal against acquittal-Scope of
interference-Two
views
possiblePresumption
of
innocence-Medical
evidence contradicting ocular testimonyContradictions
and
improvements
in
prosecution
case-Recovery
found
suspicious-No perversity in judgment of
acquittal. (Paras 15-18, 21, 22-23, 35-41)
Held: Autopsy Surgeon categorically stated that
no firearm injury was found on the body of
deceased; no bullet or pellet was recovered; no
blackening or tattooing; no entry or exit wound
- Injury was not a gunshot injury - Prosecution
failed to prove that deceased sustained any
firearm injury - prosecution witnesses materially
deviated from FIR and statements under S. 161
Cr.P.C.;
improvements
and
contradictions
introduced during trial; involvement of accused
Chander
and
Manveer
introduced
later;
testimonies unreliable - recovery of country
made pistol and cartridge was suspicious; no
independent witness; weapon allegedly used by
Kanhaiya recovered at pointing of Chander; iron
rod not produced before Court -findings
recorded by Court below are based on due
appreciation of evidence; no perversity, illegality
or misreading of material evidence established;
two views possible; appellate interference not
warranted - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 15-18, 2021, 26-31, 35, 36-39, 40, 41-42) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
State of Bihar vs. Bishwanath Rai and others,
AIR 1997 SC 3818;Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitra
and another vs. Sunil Chandra Ray and another,
1960 SCR (3) 1;Mani Ram and others vs.
State
of
U.P.,
1994
Supp.
(2)
SCC
289;Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol vs. Dinesh
Dayabhai
Vala,
2021
SCC
OnLine
SC
493;Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibahi and others
vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 602;Babu
Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar
vs.
State
of
Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561;Gamini
Bala Koteshwara Rao vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636;Manoj and
others vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 4 SCC
268;Subhash Kumar and others vs. State of
Uttarakhand, (2009) 6 SCC 641;Achhar Singh
vs. State of H.P., (2021) 5 SCC 543; Govind
Mandavi vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC
1399.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Arms Act, 1959;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

List of Keywords
Acquittal; Appeal against acquittal; Firearm
injury;
Medical
evidence;
Contradictions;
Recovery; Perverse judgment; Presumption of
innocence; Common intention; Two views
possible.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Judgment dated
24.09.2025 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 10, Budaun in Sessions Trial
No. 33 of 2016 and Sessions Trial No. 34 of
2016.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mr. Ram Babu Sharma,
Mr. Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma
Advs. for the Respondents:
Learned A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ram Babu Sharma
alongwith
Mr.
Ardhendu
Shekhar
Sharma, the learned counsel for appellant
and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite
party-1.

2. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal
is to the judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 10, Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 33 of
2016 (State Vs. Chander and others) arising
out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2015, under
Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station-
Gunnaur, District- Sambhal and connected
Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2016 (State vs.
Chander) relating to Case Crime No. 381 of
2015, under Section 3/25 of Arms Act,
whereby the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4
have been acquitted of the charges framed
against them.
12 All. Satyapal Vs. State of U.P.
403

3. Brief facts of the case are that on
01-08-2015,
first
informant/
appellant
Satyapal son of Chhote Lal, resident of
Akbarpur, Police Station Gunnaur, District
Badaun, submitted a written report (Tehrir)
(Exhibit Ka-1) stating therein that in the
morning of 01.08.2015, there was a quarrel
between his brother Jabar Singh and the
children of Chander son of Lekhraj, of the
village. When his brother, Jabar Singh went
to complain about this to Chander,
Kanhaiya and Manveer both sons of
Chander, they started quarreling. Hearing
the same, his mother, Mrs Savitri, and he
reached the spot and tried to intervene.
Kanhaiya shot at his mother on the head
with a .315 bore pistol at around 10:00 am.
When his brother Jabar Singh and he
challenged the accused, they fled into the
forest. His mother, Mrs Savitri, was
seriously
injured.
His
wife,
Sunita,
witnessed the incident. The gunfire caused
widespread panic. The residents of house
went into hiding and those nearby closed
their doors.

4. On the aforementioned written
report (Ext. Ka-1) of the appellant, an
F.I.R. was registered on 01.08.2015
against the accused persons as Case
Crime No. 256 of 2015, under Sections
307 I.P.C., Police Station- Gunnaur,
District- Sambhal. The injured Smt.
Savitri Devi was got medically treated
and on 02.08.2015 she died. Thereafter,
Section 307 IPC was converted into
Section 302 IPC. During investigation, on
06.10.2015, one country made pistol was
recovered on the pointing of the accused
Chander in Case Crime No. 256 of 2015.
As such on 06.10.2015 Case Crime No.
381 of 2015 was registered against
accused Chander under Section 3/25 of
Arms Act, which was entered in G.D. No.
20 at 09:30 hours.

5. After completion of investigation,
charge sheet under Section 302 IPC was
submitted against accused-opposite parties
2 to 4 and a separate Charge-sheet under
Section 3/25 of Arms Act was submitted
against accused Chander. Thereafter, the
cases were committed to the Court of
Sessions. After hearing both the parties,
charges were framed against chargesheeted accused on 30.06.2016, under
Sections 302/34 IPC and separate charge
under Section 3/25 of Arms Act was also
framed against accused Chander. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.

6. In order to prove it's case,
prosecution adduced PW-1 Satyapal Singh,
(informant and eye witness), PW-2 Jabar
Singh (eye witness), PW-3 SI Ayyub Khan
(police witness of inquest), PW-4 constable
Girish Chandra (formal police witness),
PW-5 Dr. Ikrar Ahmad (Autopsy Surgeon),
PW-6 constable Jauni Kumar (formal
police witness), PW-7 Smt. Sunita (eye
witness), PW-8 retired DSP Sri RK
Chauhan (2nd I.O.), PW-9 retired SI Sri
Satyaveer Singh (1st I.O.) and PW-10 HC
Vikas
Kumar
(police
witness).
The
witnesses adduced by the prosecution have
given their respective oral evidence and
also proved 23 prosecution papers and 04
material objects, which were marked as
exhibits. The same are tabulated herein
below:-

Sl.
No.

Name

Nature
of
Evidence

Documents
Proved

PW1

Satyapal

First
informant,
eye witness
and son of
deceased

Written
Report
(Tehrir) as Ext.
Ka-1

PW2
Jawar
Singh

Eye witness
and son of
deceased
-
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

PW3
Ayyub
Khan, SI

Police
witness, who
has prepared
Inquest
Report

Inquest
(Panchayatnama)
as
Ext.
Ka-2,
Photo-nas
as
Ext.
Ka-3,
Chalan-Nas
as
Ext. Ka-4, Letter
to RI Aligarh as
Ext. Ka-5, Letter
to CMO Aligarh
as
Ext.
Ka-6,
Letter to SSP
Aligarh as Ext.
Ka-7

PW4
Girish
Chandra
Constable

Formal
witness, who
prepared
Check
FIR
and
made
G.D.
entry
of
Case
Crime
No.
256/2025

Check FIR (Case
Crime
No.
256/2015)
as
Ext. Ka-8, G.D.
Entry as Ext. Ka9, G.D. No. 34
as Ext. Ka-10

PW5
Dr. Ikrar
Ahmad

Autopsy
Surgeon,
who
conducted
the
post
mortem

Post
mortem
report as Ext.
Ka-11

PW6
Jauni
Kumar,
constable

Formal
witness, who
prepared
Check
FIR
and
made
G.D.
entry
of
Case
Crime
No.
381/2015

Check FIR (Case
Crime
No.
381/2015)
as
Ext. Ka-12, copy
of G.D. as Ext.
Ka-13

PW7
Smt.
Sunita

Eye witness
of fact and
daughter-inlaw
of
deceased

-
PW8
Sri R.K.
Chauhan,
retired
DSP

2nd
Investigating
Officer

-
PW9
Sri
Satyaveer
Singh,
retired
Inspector

Police
witness

Site Plan in Case
Crime
No.
256/2015 as Ext.
Ka-14, Recovery
memo of blood
as Ext. Ka-15,
Site Plan in Case
Crime
No.
381/2015 as Ext.
Ka-16, Sanction
letter of DM as
Ext.
Ka-17,
Charge-sheet in
Case Crime No.
381/2015 as Ext.
ka-18

PW10
Vikas
Kumar,
Head
Constable

Police
witness

Copy of Register
No. 4 as Ext. Ka19. FSL report
as Ext. Ka-20,
Charge-sheet in
Case Crime No.
256/2015 as Ext.
Ka-21, Site Plan
as Ext. Ka-22,
Certified copy of
Register as Ext.
Ka-23.
Country
made
pistol recovered
from
accused
Chander
as
material Ext.-1,
one
empty
cartridge
as
material Ext. -2,
two
empty
cartridge
as
material Ext. 3 &
4.

7. After the prosecution evidence was
over,
all
the
adverse/
incriminating
circumstances
relied
upon
by
the
prosecution were disclosed to the accused -
opposite parties 2 to 4, in question answer
form for their version of the occurrence as
per mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C. They
denied all the suggestions put to them by
repeatedly saying that it is false or they
have been falsely implicated or the
prosecution case is false or the depositions
of prosecution witnesses are false. They
further stated that they are innocent and
have been falsely implicated due to village
enmity.

8. By the impugned judgment dated
24.09.2025, Court below has acquitted the
accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 of the
12 All. Satyapal Vs. State of U.P.
405
charges
framed
against
them
under
Sections 302/34 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms
Act.

9. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the
impugned judgment passed by Court
below, the present criminal appeal has been
preferred by appellant, who is the first
informant of case.

10. Learned counsel for appellant
submits that the impugned judgment is
illegal, erroneous and, therefore, liable to
be set-aside by this Court. He further
submits
that
Court
below
without
appreciating the evidence adduced by the
appellant, has illegally and erroneously,
acquitted the accused-opposite parties 2 to
4 of the charges levelled against them. PW2 and PW-7 are eye witnesses of the
incident, who have supported the evidence
given
by
appellant
as
PW-1.
The
prosecution version of the occurrence also
stands
corroborated
by
the
medical
evidence, but Court below by ignoring the
same, has arrived at the conclusion that no
case as alleged by the prosecution, is made
out against the accused opposite parties,
hence, wrongly acquitted them. As such,
the impugned judgment is illegal and
perverse and therefore liable to be set-aside
by this Court.

11. Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite
party-1 on the other hand has vehemently
opposed the present appeal. He submits that
the impugned judgment passed by Court
below does not suffer from any illegality of
law or fact much less a legal error so as to
warrant interference by this Court. Court
below has examined the prosecution case in
the light of the evidence on record
threadbare without leaving any aspect of
the matter untouched. Prosecution has
failed to prove that deceased sustained
firearm injuries. Court below has thus,
rightly acquitted the accused. Lastly, it has
been argued that no ground to interfere in
the impugned judgment is made out.
Learned A.G.A. thus urged for dismissal of
the present appeal.

12. We have heard the learned counsel
for appellant as well as the learned A.G.A.
for State-opposite party-1 and perused the
record.

13. The trial Court while acquitting the
accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 by means of
the impugned judgment has recorded the
following findings:

(i) As per written report Ext. Ka1, accused Kanhaiya shot at deceased
Mrs. Savitri on her head at around 10:00
AM with a .315 Bore country made pistol.

(ii)
Satyapal
PW-1,
during
investigation,
gave
statement
under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating
Officer that accused Kanhaiya shot at his
mother on head with a .315 Bore country
made pistol at around 10:00 AM.

(iii) Sub Inspector Ayyub Khan
PW-3 has proved the inquest report as
Ext. Ka-2, wherein, witnesses of inquest
(Panchas) concluded that the deceased
Smt. Savitri died from gunshot injury and
a large bullet whole is visible behind the
left ear of deceased near her head and
neck. Deceased's sons informant Satyapal
and Jabar Singh were included as
witnesses of inquest (Panchas).

(iv) Satyapal PW-1, in his
examination- in-chief, had deposed that at
the time of incident, accused Chander
struck his mother on her head with an
iron rod and accused Manveer also struck
with a stick. On the instigation of
Manveer and Chander, accused Kanhaiya
with intention to kill her, fired a shot at
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
her from a distance of 15-20 paces with
.315 Bore country made pistol. Bullet
struck his mother on her head, on left side
and
went
through.
During
cross
examination, he stated that bullet passed
through and through immediately after
hitting her. He further stated that at the
same time his mother was struck by an
iron rod on the place where gunshot
injury (bullet wound) was caused.

(v) Jabar Singh PW-2 in his
examination-in-chief
has
stated
that
accused Kanhaiya fired at his mother Smt.
Savitri with an intention to kill her and
accused Chander hit her with an iron rod.
During cross examination, he stated that
only one shot was fired and that shot hit
on his mother?s head. Bullet entered from
one side and came out from the other side.

(vi)
Sunita
PW-7
(wife
of
informant Satyapal PW-1) stated in her
examination-in-chief
that
accused
Chander hit her mother-in-law with an
iron rod with an intention to kill her,
accused Kanhaiya fired at her by a
country made pistol and accused Manveer
struck her with a stick.

(vii) Dr. Ikrar Ahmad PW-5,
Autopsy Surgeon, has proved post mortem
report of the deceased Savitri as Ext. Ka11. This witness found two ante mortem
injuries on the body of deceased. First
injury was lacerated wound measuring 4.5
cm x 2cm deep behind left ear. The
margins of wound were irregular. There
was no blackening or tattooing. There was
an underlying bone fracture inside the
wound. Second ante mortem injury was a
swelling measuring 6cm x 3cm located on
lower jaw and chin on the left side. There
was a fracture on the lower jaw. This
witness in his cross-examination has
stated that he neither found bullet nor
pellet in injury no. 1. There was no
blackening or tattooing. In his opinion,
this injury was not a gunshot injury and
this injury could not have been caused by
bullet. If injury no. 1 had been caused
before and thereafter a stick is being hit
on injury no. 1 even then injury no. 1
could not be caused. Injury no. 1 could
have been caused if a person accidentally
fell on hard surface or was struck by a
hard object. This witness specifically
stated that injury no. 1 is unlikely to have
been even caused by friction of a bullet.
No firearm injury of entry or exit was
found by this witness on the body of
deceased.

(viii) As per testimonies of PW-1
and PW-2, deceased Savitri was hit by
bullet and at the same time, she was also
struck by an iron rod and a stick. If that
be so, the deceased's body would have
sustained 03 ante mortem injuries i.e. one
firearm injury and 02 from stick and iron
rod respectively. Autopsy Surgeon has
clearly stated that deceased's ante mortem
injuries were not caused by gunshot as no
bullet or pellet was found inside the
injuries sustained by the deceased on her
head and there was no blackening or
tattooing around said injury. There was
no injury consistent with entry wound or
exit wound of firearm in the deceased's
body. If a person is injured by a gunshot
and bullet passes through the body, in that
eventuality, deceased's body is left with an
entry
wound
and
an
exit
wound.
Therefore, the manner and weapon used
by the accused as stated by prosecution
witnesses regarding injuries inflicted on
the deceased Savitri are not consistent
with the opinion recorded by Autopsy
Surgeon in Ext. Ka-11 i.e. post mortem
report of the deceased. While relying upon
judgments of Apex Court in State of Bihar
vs. Bishwanath Rai and others, AIR 1997
SC 3818, Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitra and
another vs. Sunil Chandra Ray and
12 All. Satyapal Vs. State of U.P.
407
another, 1960 SCR (3) 1, Mani Ram and
others vs. State of U.P., 1994 supp. (2)
SCC 289 and Pruthviraj Jayantibhai
Vanol vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala, 2021
SCC OnLine SC 493, Court below found
the prosecution story to be doubtful.

(ix) Statements of informant
Satyapal was not found to be consistent at
different stages of the evidence. Jabar
Singh PW-2 in his cross-examination has
stated that he too sustained injuries in the
incident but he did not undergo medical
examination. This witness in his statement
has only implicated accused Chander and
Kanhaiya
and
excluded
Manveer.
However, informant Satyapal PW-1 has
stated that no one except her mother
sustained injuries.

(x) Savita PW-7 in her crossexamination has stated that she was also
injured by stick but did not seek medical
treatment for her minor injuries.

(xi) Witnesses of fact presented
by prosecution i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW7 have not deposed in accordance with
prosecution story. The prosecution story
remained
constant
during
investigation, but was changed during
trial.
Earlier
only
one
accused
Kanhaiya was shown to be involved in
the
incident
but
later
on
the
involvement of accused Chander and
Manveer was also shown in the
incident. During trial, Jabar Singh
PW-2 and Sunita PW-7 gave statement
that they too have sustained injuries
during incident. However, informant
Satyapal PW-1 has clearly stated that
no one except his mother sustained
injuries. The prosecution story was
found to be continuously improved
upon, to make it more serious, by
showing involvement of more and
more accused. Prosecution also tried to
show that PW-2 and PW-7 also
sustained injuries.

 (xii) As per prosecution story in
addition to informant, 03 other persons
were present at the place of incident i.e. 02
women and 01 man. Even if there was a
dispute between two parties it is difficult to
believe why 03 accused would attack a
woman alone while two sons of woman
stood there as mute spectators. Normally,
if someone attacks an elderly woman, his
sons would undoubtedly come forward to
save her. This is not the case in hand. The
initial story against the accused was to the
effect that Kanhaiya shot deceased Savitri.
However, post mortem report showed no
bullet injury. Later during trial, evidence
was presented that in addition to bullet
injury, accused Chander inflicted injury
with an iron rod and accused Manveer
with a stick. Thus prosecution evidence
was not found to be credible.

(xiii) Recovery of country made
pistol and empty cartridge was alleged to
be made on the pointing of accused
Chander from staircase inside his house.
Despite this, no public witness was called.
The prosecution did not even prove the
original FIR in court regarding recovery
of country made pistol and empty
cartridge. Simultaneously, iron rod and
.315 Bore country made pistol were also
recovered at the pointing out of accused
Chander, but the iron rod was not
presented before court. As per the
prosecution
story,
it
was
accused
Kanhaiya who fired by a country made
pistol on the head of deceased. However,
surprisingly, pistol and empty cartridge
was recovered on the pointing of accused
Chander and not at the pointing of
accused Kanhaiya. Recovery of country
made pistol and empty cartridge was thus
found to be suspicious.
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(xiv) Serious contradictions were
found by Court below in the testimonies of
prosecution
witnesses.
Prosecution
witnesses have given different evidence
regarding the incident at every stage.
There was no consistency in their
testimonies, rendering the prosecution
narrative suspicious. Prosecution has
failed to prove that accused Chander,
Kanhaiya
and
Manveer
murdered
deceased Savitri in furtherance of a
common intention. Prosecution has also
failed to prove the recovery of illegal
country made pistol and cartridge.

14. After recording above findings,
Court below came to the conclusion that
prosecution has failed to prove the charges
levelled against the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt and thus acquitted them
vide judgment dated 24.09.2025.

15. While considering the scope of
interference in an appeal against acquittal,
it has been held by the Supreme Court that
if two views are possible, one supporting
acquittal and other indicating conviction,
the High Court should not, in such a
situation, reverse the order of acquittal
recorded by Court below. Reference in this
regard be made to the judgment of Supreme
Court in Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibahi
and others vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5
SCC 602, which is most appropriately
applicable to the facts of the present case.
Paragraph-9 of the report is relevant for the
controversy in hand and is accordingly,
reproduced herein-below:-

" Law is now well settled that
though the Cr.P.C. does not make any
distinction between the powers of the
Appellate Court while dealing with an
order of conviction or of acquittal,
normally the Appellate Court does not
disturb an order of acquittal in a case
where two views of the evidence are
reasonably
possible.
But
the
above
principle of is not applicable where the
approach of the trial Judge in dealing
with evidence is manifestly erroneous and
the
conclusions
drawn
are
wholly
unreasonably and perverse. In the instant
case, we find that the High Court was
fully conscious and did not transgress the
bounds, of its appellate powers while
dealing and reversing the order of
acquittal."

16.
The
Apex
Court
in
Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561,
which clearly reach an appeal against
acquittal has observed as under:

"39. Thus, it is beyond the pale
of doubt that the scope of interference by
an appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court in favour of the accused has to be
exercised within the four corners of the
following principles:-

(a)
That
the
judgment
of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record;

(c) That no two reasonable views
are possible and only the view consistent
with the guilt of the accused is possible
from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order
to interfere with the judgment of acquittal
would have to record pertinent findings on
the above factors if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the
trial Court."

17. It has also been observed in abovementioned judgment that an Appellate
12 All. Satyapal Vs. State of U.P.
409
Court, however, must bear in mind that in
case
of
acquittal,
there
is
double
presumption in favour of 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 Court below. It has
further been observed that the Appellate
Court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that
the only conclusion, which can be recorded
on the basis of the evidence on record was
that the guilt of the accused was proved
beyond all reasonable doubts and no other
conclusion was possible.

18. In Gamini Bala Koteshwara Rao
vs. State of Andra Pradesh, (2009) 10
SCC 636, it was observed that interference
in an appeal against acquittal should be rare
and in an exceptional circumstance. It was
further held that it is open to the High
Court to reappraise the evidence and
conclusion arrived at by Court below.
However, it is limited to those cases where
the judgment of Court below was perverse.
The Court further went to declare that the
word "perverse", as understood in law, has
been understood to mean, "against the
weight of evidence". If there are two views
and Court below has taken one of the views
merely because another view in plausible,
the Appellant Court will not be justified in
interfering with the verdict of acquittal.

19. Having heard the learned counsel
for appellant, the learned A.G.A. for Stateopposite party 1 and upon evaluation of the
impugned judgment including the reasons
recorded therein, in the light of depositions
of 03 prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. PW1, PW-2 and PW-7 and keeping in mind the
limitations with a Court of appeal dealing
with a judgment of acquittal, this Court
finds that the following questions arise for
consideration in present appeal:-

(i). Whether conclusion drawn by
Court below that prosecution has failed to
prove that deceased sustained any firearm
injury, is legally sustainable.

(ii). Whether reasons recorded by
Court below in support of it's conclusion that
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of
accused beyond reasonable doubt are cogent
and valid reasons or illusionary being against
the weight of evidence on record, therefore,
illegal and perverse.

Question No. 1

(i). Whether conclusion drawn
by Court below that prosecution has failed
to prove that deceased sustained any
firearm injury, is legally sustainable.

20. Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Ikrar Ahmad
conducted post mortem of the body of
deceased Savitri and has testified as PW-5.
This witness found following ante mortem
injuries on the body of deceased:-

(i) A lacerated wound measuring
4.5 cm x 2cm skull deep behind left ear. The
margins of this wound were irregular. There
was no abraded colour around this wound.
There was no blackening or tattooing. An
underlying bone inside this wound was found
fractured.

(ii) A swelling measuring 6cm x
3cm on left side of lower jaw and chin. Lower
jaw below this injury was found fractured.

21. PW-5 Dr. Ikrar Ahmad in his
cross-examination has clearly stated that no
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bullet or pellet was found in injury no. 1.
There was no blackening or tattooing
either. In his opinion, injury no. 1 was
neither a bullet injury nor it could have
been caused by a pellet. In his opinion, this
injury could not have been caused even if
injury no. 1 has been caused first by a
firearm followed by the blow of stick over
it. If some person accidentally falls on hard
surface and his head strucks with a hard
object, in that eventuality, injury no. 1 can
be caused. Injury no. 1 cannot even be
caused by the friction of bullet. There was
no injury of entry or exit wound of firearm
on the body of deceased. Testimony of this
autopsy surgeon is categorical and clear
that no firearm injury was found on the
body of deceased. Moreover, injury no. 1
which is a lacerated wound and found on
the skull of deceased, was not having any
blackening or tattooing as there is no entry
wound and corresponding exit wound on
the skull of deceased. No bullet or pellet
was found inside the skull of deceased.
Therefore, in this background, said injury is
neither a bullet injury nor a firearm injury.
A careful analysis of the evidence of this
witness makes it abundantly clear that
deceased was not having any ante mortem
firearm injury on her body. In our
opinion, the prosecution has miserably
failed
to prove
that deceased
had
sustained any firearm injury. Court below
has discussed in detail regarding this
aspect of alleged firearm injury in Para25 of the impugned judgment (pages 13
and 15 of the paper book). It has rightly
come to the conclusion that prosecution
has failed to prove that deceased Savitri
sustained any firearm injury, raising
serious question mark on the prosecution
story
and
thus,
has
rightly
found
prosecution story to be a suspicious one.
Question No. 1 is accordingly answered
in the affirmative.

Question No. 2

(ii). Whether reasons recorded by
Court below in support of it?s conclusion
that prosecution has failed to establish
guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt
or cogent and valid reasons or illusionary
and against the weight of evidence on
record, therefore, illegal and perverse.

22. Court below upon evaluation of
prosecution witnesses of fact, finally came
to the conclusion that serious contradictions
have emerged in the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses. The prosecution
witnesses have not presented concrete and
consistent
evidence
to
support
the
prosecution narrative beyond reasonable
doubt. The witnesses of fact have given
different evidence regarding incident at
every stage. There is no consistency in their
testimonies
rendering
the
prosecution
narrative
suspicious.
The
evidence
presented by prosecution does not prove
that accused Chander, Kanhaiya and
Manveer
murdered
Savitri
Devi
in
furtherance of their common intention. The
prosecution has also not been able to prove
that illegal country made pistol and
cartridge were recovered from accused
Chander, as a result, Court below acquitted
the accused opposite parties.

23. So far as the veracity of above
reasons recorded by Court below to
conclude that the guilt of accused does not
stand established beyond reasonable doubt
also cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.
The findings/reasons returned by Court
below in support of above conclusion are
based
upon
due
evaluation
of
the
allegations made in first information report
in the light of evidence on record. Court
below has assigned specific reasons for
coming to the conclusion that no offence
12 All. Satyapal Vs. State of U.P.
411
under any of the charging Section is made
out against accused. Upon examination by
us of the said findings in the light of
depositions of the prosecution witnesses as
noted in the impugned judgment, we could
not come across any such fact on the basis
of which, any of the findings qua the
charging sections can be said to be illegal,
perverse
or
erroneous.
Infact
the
prosecution itself could not prove the fact
that deceased sustained any firearm injury
by it's own evidence. As such, the
conclusion drawn by Court below that
no criminality as alleged to have been
committed
by
the
accused-opposite
parties 2 to 4 is borne out from the
record is neither illegal nor perverse.

24. Out of abundant caution, we are
examining the depositions of informant
Satyapal PW-1, Jabar Singh PW-2 and
Sunita PW-7. The informant Satyapal and
Jabar Singh are real brothers and sons of
deceased
Savitri.
Sunita
is
wife
of
informant Satyapal and daughter-in-law of
deceased Savitri.

25. Informant- appellant Satyapal
lodged the FIR by submitting a written
report (Ext. Ka-1) at Police Station
Gunnaur, District Sambhal. The incident is
said to have taken place on 01.08.2015 and
the timing of incident as reported in written
report is 10:00 am. FIR was lodged within
an hour of the incident i.e. by 11:00 am on
01.08.2015.

26. As per FIR, accused Chander,
Kanhaiya and Manveer were quarrelling
with informant's brother Jabar Singh.
Informant, his mother Savitri and his wife
Sunita arrived at the spot after hearing the
noise and informant?s mother Savitri when
tried to intervene, at that time, accused
Kanhaiya shot at his mother on her head. In
the FIR, no role other than quarrelling has
been assigned to accused Channder and
Manveer. No weapon whatsoever has been
assigned to both of these accused. A clear
and categorical case has been put forward
in the FIR that accused Kanhaiya shot at
Smt. Savitri on her head with a .315 Bore
country made pistol.

27. Informant- appellant Satyapal in
his statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that accused
Kanhaiya shot at his mother on her head
with .315 Bore country made pistol but he
did not state anything regarding accused
Chander or Manveer that these two accused
had also inflicted any injury on the
deceased with the help of an iron rod or
stick. Similar were the statements of PW-2
and PW-7 during course of investigation.

28.
Therefore,
from
the
very
beginning, the prosecution brought out a
specific
story
wherein
it
has
been
specifically alleged that accused Kanhaiya
shot at Savitri on her head with .315 Bore
country made pistol and she died on
account of gunshot injury. This story
continued even while narrating opinion of
inquest witnesses and thereafter in the
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of the witnesses of fact during
course of investigation by the Investigating
Officer.

29. Oral and documentary medical
evidence has belied this prosecution
version of the incident as narrated in FIR
and continued during investigation as no
firearm injury was found on the body of
deceased Savitri.

30. However, after post mortem report
was prepared, it became abundantly clear
that no gunshot injury was found on the
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
body of deceased, therefore, prosecution
witnesses who are sons and daughter-inlaw of deceased developed a new story
wherein it has been alleged that accused
Kanhaiya caused through and through
gunshot injury by a .315 Bore country
made pistol and simultaneously accused
Chander stuck deceased with an iron rod
and accused Manveer struck her with a
stick.

31. During trial, PW-1 Satyapal in his
examination-in-chief
has
stated
that
accused Chander hit his mother on her head
with an iron rod and accused Manveer also
hit her with a stick. On the instigation of
accused Manveer and Chander, Kanhaiya
fired a shot from a .315 Bore country made
pistol and the bullet hit his mother on the
left side of her head and went out. In his
cross-examination he stated that bullet
immediately went out after hitting and iron
rod was struck on firearm injury.

32.
Jabar
Singh
PW-2
in
his
examination-in-chief
has
stated
that
accused Kanhaiya fired a shot by his
country made pistol at his mother Savitri
and accused Chander hit her with an iron
rod.

33. Sunita PW-7 in her examinationin-chief has stated that accused Chander hit
her mother-in-law with an iron rod and
accused Kanhaiya fired from a country
made
pistol.
Accused
Manveer
also
attacked with a stick.

34. As per depositions of PW-1, PW-2
and PW-7, the bullet fired from a country
made pistol passed through head of
deceased Savitri after it struck her. At this
juncture, it is very important to observe that
informant PW-1 Satyapal was a witness of
inquest and in the inquest report (Ext. Ka2), all the witnesses of inquest have stated
that Savitri Devi died on account of a
gunshot injury.

35. The very prosecution story that the
deceased sustained gunshot injury even if it
is presumed to be a through and through
gunshot injury is completely falsified by
the medical evidence available on record.
The prosecution has miserably failed to
prove that deceased suffered any firearm
injury.

36.
Moreover,
the
prosecution
witnesses of fact PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7
have not only deviated from the basic
prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR
and have tried to create a different story by
alleging specific role of accused Chander
and Manveer in the occurrence and tried to
explain that the injury of lacerated wound
found on skull of deceased by stating that
deceased was also struck with an iron rod
after being hit by a bullet. This new
narrative which has been placed on record
only during the course of trial is a clear
deviation from the basic prosecution story
as unfolded in FIR. We may point out that
though the FIR is not an encyclopedia of
the prosecution case, but it does disclose
the basic prosecution case. (Vide Manoj
and others Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(1999) 4, SCC 268, Subhash Kumar and
others Vs. State of Uttrakhand, (2009) 6
SCC 641 and Achhar Singh Vs. State of
H.P. (2021) 5 SCC 543). The witnesses
have themselves departed from the basic
prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR for
which no plausible explanation has come
forward.

37. PW-2 and PW-7 in their cross
examination have stated that they have also
sustained injuries during the incident.
However, no such narrative was either
12 All. Satyapal Vs. State of U.P.
413
made in FIR nor was it mentioned by these
witnesses in their statements recorded
under
Section
161
Cr.P.C.
whereas
informant- appellant Satyapal PW-1 has
clearly stated that no other person other
than his mother got injured in the incident.
Thus, it is apparently clear that there are
serious contradictions in the depositions of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 qua the occurence.

38.