# State of U.P v. Kallan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 196
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-27
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 1178 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-kallan-ors-52966
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appeal against
- Scope of interference - Sessions Trial
for murder under Sections 302/34 and
506 IPC - Trial court acquitted all
accused after disbelieving prosecution
witnesses and rejecting motive -Held,
appellate court must not interfere with
acquittal unless view of trial court is
perverse,
illegal
or
unsupported
by
evidence - Testimony of prosecution
witnesses
found
contradictory;
key
eyewitness
turned
hostile
-
Motive
appeared remote and speculative - Trial
court's acquittal based on plausible view
supported by evidence - No interference
warranted. (Paras 21 to 24, 27, 28, and
29)

HELD:
While going through the testimony of said
witness, we find that she being the wife of the
deceased, was the most natural witness, whose
presence in the wee hours of the night cannot
be doubted and she, in her St.ment, has
categorically St.d that accused-opposite parties
were not real assailants and some unknown
persons had in fact murdered her husband, who
had concealed their identity and could not be
identified by her. She further categorically St.d
that earlier testimony given by her was under
the fear and pressure of the P.W.-1- Iqbal and
P.W.-9- Salman (Para 21)

Thus, the said witness, in our opinion, cannot
be said to be a wholly reliable witness but an
inconsistent witness, thus relying on her
testimony, the said accused-opposite parties
cannot be convicted by reversing the acquittal.
Even when we go through the testimony of P.W1 and P.W.-2, who are the real brother of the
deceased and the first informant and sister inlaw of the deceased, we find that there are
material contradictions in their testimonies as
noted by the trial court and, therefore, they too
cannot be said to be reliable witnesses as held
by the trial court. The motive suggested for the
commission of the said offence also do not
inspire confidence at all. Even if, aggrieved by
the act and conduct of Salman, who forcibly
enticed away her daughter and married him
against his wishes then he would have caused
the death of Salman and there is no reason for
him to cause the death of Gulfam brother of the
deceased, which circumstance further creates a
serious doubt about the prosecution story and,
therefore, the appellants, in our opinion, are
entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Para 22)

Assessing the aforementioned analysis and
evaluation of the evidence with the aforesaid
guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the judgement of Mallappa(supra), we are of
the considered opinion that the learned trial
court has taken legally plausible view, which
favours the accused and thus it does not
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Kallan & Ors.
197
deserves any interference by this court in
exercise of powers under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C.
(Para 24)

In the light of above settled proposition of law
more so in view of the fact that the criminal
appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. filed by the
first informant, has already been rejected by
coordinate bench of this Court vide Judgment
and order dated 5.4.2024, which has not further
been challenged before higher court and has
become final and going through the impugned
Judgment, we find that the trial court had given
cogent and convincing reasons for recording the
finding of acquittal against the accused opposite
parties and that the acquittal of the accused
opposite parties is plausible and justifiable view
emanating from the discussion of the evidence
available on record and does not suffer from any
infirmity or perversity. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the impugned judgement and order
passed by the trial court is just, proper and legal
and do not call for any interference by this
Court. (Para 29)

Revision application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the owner's risk in relation to accidents
taking place after 01.04.2022 and "PAY &
RECOVER" principle will still continue to
govern the field advancing social object of
the Statute protecting third party interest.
Principle of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT
2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its
significance and binding effect despite
omission of proviso. Held accordingly.

39. Consequently, all the appeals fail
and are dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 196
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Government Appeal No. 1178 of 2024

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Kallan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.K. Sand, Mohd. Danish, Saif Ali Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appeal against
- Scope of interference - Sessions Trial
for murder under Sections 302/34 and
506 IPC - Trial court acquitted all
accused after disbelieving prosecution
witnesses and rejecting motive -Held,
appellate court must not interfere with
acquittal unless view of trial court is
perverse,
illegal
or
unsupported
by
evidence - Testimony of prosecution
witnesses
found
contradictory;
key
eyewitness
turned
hostile
-
Motive
appeared remote and speculative - Trial
court's acquittal based on plausible view
supported by evidence - No interference
warranted. (Paras 21 to 24, 27, 28, and
29)

HELD:
While going through the testimony of said
witness, we find that she being the wife of the
deceased, was the most natural witness, whose
presence in the wee hours of the night cannot
be doubted and she, in her St.ment, has
categorically St.d that accused-opposite parties
were not real assailants and some unknown
persons had in fact murdered her husband, who
had concealed their identity and could not be
identified by her. She further categorically St.d
that earlier testimony given by her was under
the fear and pressure of the P.W.-1- Iqbal and
P.W.-9- Salman (Para 21)

Thus, the said witness, in our opinion, cannot
be said to be a wholly reliable witness but an
inconsistent witness, thus relying on her
testimony, the said accused-opposite parties
cannot be convicted by reversing the acquittal.
Even when we go through the testimony of P.W1 and P.W.-2, who are the real brother of the
deceased and the first informant and sister inlaw of the deceased, we find that there are
material contradictions in their testimonies as
noted by the trial court and, therefore, they too
cannot be said to be reliable witnesses as held
by the trial court. The motive suggested for the
commission of the said offence also do not
inspire confidence at all. Even if, aggrieved by
the act and conduct of Salman, who forcibly
enticed away her daughter and married him
against his wishes then he would have caused
the death of Salman and there is no reason for
him to cause the death of Gulfam brother of the
deceased, which circumstance further creates a
serious doubt about the prosecution story and,
therefore, the appellants, in our opinion, are
entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Para 22)

Assessing the aforementioned analysis and
evaluation of the evidence with the aforesaid
guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the judgement of Mallappa(supra), we are of
the considered opinion that the learned trial
court has taken legally plausible view, which
favours the accused and thus it does not
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Kallan & Ors.
197
deserves any interference by this court in
exercise of powers under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C.
(Para 24)

In the light of above settled proposition of law
more so in view of the fact that the criminal
appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. filed by the
first informant, has already been rejected by
coordinate bench of this Court vide Judgment
and order dated 5.4.2024, which has not further
been challenged before higher court and has
become final and going through the impugned
Judgment, we find that the trial court had given
cogent and convincing reasons for recording the
finding of acquittal against the accused opposite
parties and that the acquittal of the accused
opposite parties is plausible and justifiable view
emanating from the discussion of the evidence
available on record and does not suffer from any
infirmity or perversity. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the impugned judgement and order
passed by the trial court is just, proper and legal
and do not call for any interference by this
Court. (Para 29)

Revision application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mallappa Vs St. of Karn., 2024 SCC OnLine SC
130

2. Rajesh Prasad Vs St. of Bihar & anr., (2023) 6
SCC 115

3. H.D. Sundara Vs St. of Karn., (2023) 8 SCC
544

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar
Husain Idrisi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal,
learned AGA for the appellant/State, Sri
Mohd. Danish, learned counsel for the
accused-opposite parties and perused the
trial court record.

2. The instant Government Appeal
alongwith an application for grant of leave
to appeal has been filed by the State of U.P.
against the impugned judgment and order
dated 13.3.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions
Judge, Court No. 9, Moradabad in Sessions
Trial No. 952 of 2018 (State Vs. Kallan and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 39 of
2018, under Sections 302 read with section
34 IPC and Section 506 IPC, P.S.-
Hazratnagar Garhi, District-Moradabad, by
which, all the accused-opposite parties
Kallan, Haneef, Shahid and Waheed have
been acquitted of all the charges framed
against them under Sections 302/34, 506
IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, based
on the written report an FIR has been
lodged at the instance of one Iqbal son of
Wazeer on 12.6.2018, stating therein that
he is permanent resident of Sonakpur, P.S.
Hazratnagar
Garhi,
Moradabad.
On
12.6.2018 in the night, he was sleeping on
the roof top of his house alongwith his
children. His younger brother Gulfam was
also sleeping alongwith his wife and
children in the nearby roof and at about
1.30 a.m. in the night, accused-opposite
parties, namely Kallan, Haneef, Shahid and
Waheed
in
furtherance
of
common
intention reached on the roof top of his
brother Gulfam and sliced his neck causing
his death.

4. It is further alleged that while
committing the said murder, they were
saying that your brother had forcibly taken
away his daughter and the said incident is
outcome of the same. After hearing the
screaming of Gulfam, he had seen the
assailants, in the torch light, running away
towards jungle.

5. On the basis of said written report, a
first information report was lodged at
Police Station-Hazratnagar Garhi vide Case
Crime No. 13 of 2018, under Section 302,
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
506 IPC on 12.6.2018 at 4.14 a.m. After
registration of the said first information
report by P.W.-6 Head Constable Parvez
Ali, the investigation of the case was
entrusted to P.W-13 S.I. Neeraj Kumar
Sharma, who reached the place of incident
and prepared the site-plan and recorded the
statement of relevant witnesses and had
taken in his possession the torch and
prepared
its
fard
recovery
memo.
Thereafter, P.W.-10 SSI Jitendra Kumar
Baliyan conducted the inquest on the
person of the deceased and prepared the
inquest report and the other documents,
namely photo-lash, challan-lash, letter
C.M.O., letter R.I. and also took in
possession the blood stained earth and plain
earth from the place of incident and kept it
in a container and prepared its fard
recovery memo and thereafter sealed the
dead body in a cloth and handed it over to
P.W.-8 Constable
Manoj
Kumar
for
carrying it to the mortuary for post-mortem.

6. An autopsy was conducted on the
person of the deceased on 12.6.2018 by
P.W.-7 Dr. Shashi Kumar, who had noted
the injuries found on the person of the
deceased and prepared the post-mortem
report, wherein the cause of death has been
noted to be ante mortem injury as a result
of shock and haemorrhage.

7. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer
after recording the statement of relevant
witnesses and collecting the relevant
material, concluded the investigation and
submitted the charge- sheet against all the
four accused- opposite parties.

8. On the basis of said charge sheet,
learned Magistrate had taken cognizance,
however, since the case was exclusively
triable by the court of Sessions, it was
committed to the court of Sessions for trial,
where it was registered as Sessions Trial
No. 952 of 2018 (State Vs. Kallan and
others). The trial court thereafter on
13.3.2019 framed the charges against the
accused-opposite parties under Section 302
read with section 34 and 506 IPC, which
was read over and explained to them, who
abjured the charges, pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.

9. The prosecution, in order to prove
the guilt against the accused-opposite
parties, has examined P.W.-1 Iqbal, the
first informant, P.W.-2 Smt. Asma, wife of
Iqbal, eye witness, P.W.-3 Smt. Shabnam
wife of deceased, P.W.-4 Jane Alam
witness of fard recovery of torch and hair
strands, P.W.-5 Irfan witness of inquest and
witness of recovery of crime weapon, P.W6 Head Constable Parvez Ali, who had
drawn the first information report and the
chik FIR alongwith its corresponding G.D.,
P.W.-7 Dr. Shashi Kumar, Medical Officer,
who conducted the post-mortem and noted
the injuries, P.W.-8 Constable Manoj
Kumar, who had taken the dead body to the
mortuary for post-mortem, P.W.-9 Salman
another brother of the deceased, P.W.-10
S.S.I. Jitendra Baliyan, who had conducted
the inquest on the person of the deceased
and prepared the recovery memos, P.W.-11
Smt. Sanno wife of Salman daughter of
Kallan accused-opposite party No. 1, P.W.-
12 Tasleem witness of inquest and P.W-13
S.I. Neeraj Kumar Sharma the Investigating
Officer.

10. After recording the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, the statement of
the accused opposite parties were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they
have denied the prosecution story and
stated
that
they
have
been
falsely
implicated in the present case on account of
village enmity and infact were not present
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Kallan & Ors.
199
at the time of incident and the incident has
been caused by some unknown person.
Zaqir son of Nasruddin, Nanhu son of
Ismail, Akbar son of Roshan, Julfiquar Ali
son Anees and Yameen son of Jumma were
produced as defence witnesses to support
the defence.

11.
After
recording
the
entire
testimonies of the witnesses and hearing
the accused-opposite parties, the trial court
acquitted the accused- opposites parties of
all the charges framed against them vide
judgment and order dated 13.3.2024.

12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied
by the said order, the present Govt. Appeal
has been preferred by the State alongwith
an application for grant of leave to appeal
with the prayer to reverse the finding of
acquittal recorded in favour of the accusedopposite parties and to convict them for the
offence charged with.

13.
Learned
AGA
for
the
State/appellant has submitted that the trial
court has not appreciated the evidence and
material on record in right perspective and
has illegally recorded the finding of
acquittal in favour of the accused-opposite
parties. He has further submitted that the
impugned judgment and order passed by
the trial court is based on surmises and
conjectures and, therefore, liable to be set
aside by allowing the instant govt. appeal.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the
accused-opposite parties has submitted that
the trial court has appreciated the evidence
and material on record in right perspective
and has recorded the finding of acquittal in
favour of the accused-opposite parties in
the light of testimony adduced during the
course of trial and has reached the just
conclusion that no offence charged with, is
made out against the accused-opposite
parties, however, they have been falsely
implicated in the instant case. He has
further submitted that against the impugned
judgment and order dated 13.3.2024 passed
by the trial court, an appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C.
No. 169 of 2024 was preferred by the first
informant Iqbal. The said appeal was heard
by co-ordinate bench of this Court and this
Court vide judgment and order dated
5.4.2024 by a well reasoned and detailed
order rejected the said appeal.

15. Against the said order dated
5.4.2024 dismissing the Criminal Appeal
u/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 169 of 2024, no further
appeal has been filed before the higher
court and the said order has become final
and thus, the present Govt. Appeal is also
liable to be dismissed.

16. Having considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and recapitulating the facts
of the case and the testimony made therein,
we find that incident in question is said to
have taken place on 12.6.2018 at around
1.30 in the night when the accused-opposite
parties are said to have assaulted Gulfam
brother of Salman. Even according to the
prosecution own case, Sanno daughter of
Kallan accused-opposite party No. 1 was
forcibly taken away by the Salman brother
of the deceased Gulfam, who married her
and was living peacefully with her. The
said marriage was against the wishes of
accused-opposite party No. 1 Kallan and
thus, he committed the instant offence.

17. When we go through the motive of
the present incident and analysing the
same, we find that in the backdrop of the
motive as suggested by the prosecution, the
accused-opposite party No. 1 Kallan was
aggrieved with the act and conduct of
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Salman, who forcibly had taken away his
daughter and married her four years back
and was living peacefully with him,
however, after four years there was no
reason for the accused-opposite party No. 1
Kallan to join hands with other accusedpersons to kill Gulfam brother of Salman.

18. The trial court has vividly
discussed the said factum of motive and
held
that
in
the
backdrop
of
the
circumstance, the said motive appears to be
far-fetched and difficult to believe. During
the course of trial, Salman and Smt. Sanno
daughter
of
Kallan have
also
been
examined as P.W.-9 and P.W.-11. Salman
and they in their testimony, stated that after
marriage with Sanno, he alongwith his wife
has been residing at Delhi and the accusedopposite
party
No.
1
Kallan
never
contacted them after the incident nor
extended any threats to them and the last
four years were event free and no untoward
incident had taken place during this period,
however, suddenly killing of Gulfam by
Kallan and his accomplices for the
aforesaid motive, raises a big question
mark and grave doubt about the veracity
and authenticity of the prosecution case,
that too in the darkness of night when all
were sleeping.

19. Furthermore, when we go through
the testimony of P.W-3 Shabnam wife of
deceased Gulfam, who claims herself to be
an eye witness, we find that though in her
examination in-chief, she has supported the
prosecution
story
but
in
her
cross
examination, she has categorically stated
that the incident has taken place in the dark
night, where there was no source of light
either of torch or any electric bulb and at
the relevant time, she was not present at the
roof top, where the deceased was sleeping
but had come down. She has further
categorically stated that no other person of
the village nor any of his family members
nor Iqbal had witnessed the incident, he
was not even present at the place of
incident and it was she, who had first
reached the place of incident and raised
alarm.

20. She has further categorically stated
that
accused-opposite
parties
Kallan,
Haneef,
Shahid
and
Waheed
though
involved in the present incident and
belongs to her village with whom she is
well acquainted but they were not seen at
the time of incident. She has further stated
that her husband was done to death by the
assailants, who had covered their identity
and could not be identified by her. She has
further stated that assailants, who actually
committed the incident and were running
away, were not of the same physical
structure as that of the accused. She further
denied to have given any statement to the
police nor she was interrogated by the
police. She further testified that Iqbal used
to live in a separate house and the earlier
statement given by her was made under the
fear and pressure of Iqbal and Salman, who
had extended death threats to her if she
refuses to depose as per their wishes,
nominating accused-opposite parties as
accused. She even denied the presence of
P.W.-2- Asma at the time of incident, as
such, she was declared hostile by the
prosecution and cross examined by the
public prosecutor.

21. While going through the testimony
of said witness, we find that she being the
wife of the deceased, was the most natural
witness, whose presence in the wee hours
of the night cannot be doubted and she, in
her statement, has categorically stated that
accused-opposite parties were not real
assailants and some unknown persons had
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Kallan & Ors.
201
infact murdered her husband, who had
concealed their identity and could not be
identified by her. She further categorically
stated that earlier testimony given by her
was under the fear and pressure of the
P.W.-1- Iqbal and P.W.-9- Salman.

22. Thus, the said witness, in our
opinion, cannot be said to be a wholly
reliable witness but an inconsistent witness,
thus relying on her testimony, the said
accused-opposite
parties
cannot
be
convicted by reversing the acquittal. Even
when we go through the testimony of P.W-1
and P.W.-2, who are the real brother of the
deceased and the first informant and sister inlaw of the deceased, we find that there are
material contradictions in their testimonies as
noted by the trial court and, therefore, they
too cannot be said to be reliable witnesses as
held by the trial court. The motive suggested
for the commission of the said offence also
do not inspire confidence at all. Even if,
aggrieved by the act and conduct of Salman,
who forcibly enticed away her daughter and
married him against his wishes then he would
have caused the death of Salman and there is
no reason for him to cause the death of
Gulfam brother of the deceased, which
circumstance further creates a serious doubt
about the prosecution story and, therefore, the
appellants, in our opinion, are entitled to the
benefit of doubt.

23. Now coming to the scope of
reversal of acquittal in Govt. Appeal, it will
be relevant to note the principles of law
laid down by the Apex Court with regard to
the appreciation of evidence in the appeal
against the acquittal. Recently in Mallappa
v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 130, the Apex Court has held as under:-

37. Our criminal jurisprudence is
essentially based on the promise that no
innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of
criminal law, are intended to prevent any
failure of justice. The principles which come
into play while deciding an appeal from
acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the
core element of a criminal trial and such
appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive
of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation
of evidence may result in a miscarriage of
justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation
of evidence, finds that two views are possible,
the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily
be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a
legally plausible view, mere possibility of a
contrary view shall not justify the reversal of
acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined
to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically
address all the reasons given by the Trial Court
for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from
acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court
must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or
error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial
Court.

24. Assessing the aforementioned
analysis and evaluation of the evidence
with the aforesaid guidelines given by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement of
Mallappa(supra), we are of the considered
opinion that the learned trial court has
taken legally plausible view, which favours
the accused and thus it does not deserves
any interference by this court in exercise of
powers under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C.

25. Further this Court in the case of
Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Another encapsulated the legal position
covering the field after considering various
earlier judgments and held as below: -

"29. After referring to a catena of
judgments, this Court culled out the
following general principles regarding the
powers of the appellate court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of
acquittal
in
the
following
words:
(Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415]

"42. From the above decisions, in
our considered view, the following general
principles
regarding
powers
of
the
appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full
power
to
review,
reappreciate
and
reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.

(2)
The
Criminal
Procedure
Code, 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
distrub the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court."

26. Further, in the case of H.D.
Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka this
Court summarized the principles governing
the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal
under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -

"8.1. The acquittal of the accused
further strengthens the presumption of
innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while
hearing an appeal against acquittal, is
entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while
deciding an appeal against acquittal, after
re-appreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial
court is a possible view which could have
been taken on the basis of the evidence on
record;

8.4. If the view taken is a possible
view, the appellate court cannot overturn
the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and

8.5. 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
1 All. Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
203
basis of the evidence on record was that the
guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion
was possible."

27. 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 reikeasonable
views are possible and only the view
consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on
record.

28. 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.

29. In the light of above settled
proposition of law moreso in view of the
fact that the criminal appeal under Section
372 Cr.P.C. filed by the first informant, has
already been rejected by coordinate bench
of this Court vide Judgment and order
dated 5.4.2024, which has not further been
challenged before higher court and has
become final and going through the
impugned Judgment, we find that the trial
court had given cogent and convincing
reasons for recording the finding of
acquittal
against
the
accused-opposite
parties and that the acquittal of the accusedopposite parties is plausible and justifiable
view emanating from the discussion of the
evidence available on record and does not
suffer from any infirmity or perversity.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
impugned judgement and order passed by
the trial court is just, proper and legal and
do not call for any interference by this
Court.

30. Accordingly, the prayer to grant
leave to appeal is refused. The Govt.
Appeal is also accordingly dismissed.

31. Let a certified copy of this
judgment and order be forwarded to the
court concerned for information and
necessary compliance alongwith the trial
court record.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 203
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 363 of 2025

Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sharad Pathak, Gaurav Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 239 - Discharge , Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Section
420
-
Application
seeking
discharge
under
Section 239 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section
420 IPC - Mere act of certifying an