# State of U.P v. Navaratan Lal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 948
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-03
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 82 of 1987
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-navaratan-lal-ors-47467
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 147,342, 323, 506,
498-A, 307, 376/511,306 & 406 -
Accused respondents acquitted of all
charges u/s 147,342, 323, 506, 498-A,
307,
376/511,306
&
406
IPC
by
learned trial court-Appeal- Learned
trial court has examined the St.ments
of
Pws-and
rightly
concluded
in
acquittal-sole evidence of victim does
not find any corroboration by any
independent
or
impartial
witnessrightly concluded that charges leveled
are not proved.

Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. This court is thankful to learned
counsel for the parties for ably assisting
this Court in getting this matter disposed
off.

30. Learned Amicus Curiae appointed
by Legal Services Committee, who shall be
paid all his dues as are admissible.
----------
(2022)01ILR A948
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Government Appeal No. 82 of 1987

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Navaratan Lal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kameshwar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 147,342, 323, 506,
498-A, 307, 376/511,306 & 406 -
Accused respondents acquitted of all
charges u/s 147,342, 323, 506, 498-A,
307,
376/511,306
&
406
IPC
by
learned trial court-Appeal- Learned
trial court has examined the St.ments
of
Pws-and
rightly
concluded
in
acquittal-sole evidence of victim does
not find any corroboration by any
independent
or
impartial
witnessrightly concluded that charges leveled
are not proved.

Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs St. of Kerala
& anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39

2. Chandrappa Vs St. of Karn., reported in
(2007) 4 S.C.C. 415

3. St. of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran & anr., reported
in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75

4. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Veer Singh & ors.s, 2007
A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553

5. Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s Vs St. of MP,
2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589

6. Luna Ram Vs Bhupat Singh & ors., reported in
(2009) SCC 749

7. Mookkiah & anr. Vs St. Representatives by the
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR
2013 SC 321

8. St. of Karnataka Vs Hemareddy, AIR 1981, SC
1417

9. Shivasharanappa & ors. Vs St. of Karnataka,
JT 2013 (7) SC 66

10. St. of Punjab Vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma,
(2013) 14 SCC 153

11. Jayaswamy Vs St. of Karn., (2018) 7 SCC
219

12. Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan Vs St. of Gujarat,
(2020) 14 SC 750

13. Samsul Haque Vs St. of Assam, (2019) 18
SCC 161
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal under Section 378 (3)
of Criminal Procedure Code (in short
'Cr.P.C.'), at the behest of the State, has
been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 29.9.1986, passed by learned
Special & Additional Sessions Judge,
Banda in Sessions Trial No.522 of 1985
(State vs. Navratan Lal and others) arising
out of Case Crime No.1229 of 1985 under
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Navratan Lal & Ors.
949
Secions 147, 342, 323, 506, 498-A, 307,
376/511, 306 & 406 Indian Penal Code (in
short 'IPC') along with Section3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, Police StationKotwali,
District-Banda,
whereby
the
learned trial-court acquitted all the accusedrespondents of all charges.

2. The brief facts of this case are that
a First Information Report was lodged at
Kotwali, District-Banda by complainant/
victim with the averments that she was
married with Kallu Gupta S/o Navratan
Lal before three years ago and the accused
persons were not happy with the dowry
given in the marriage and they did not
want to keep her in their house. After
marriage, she lived in her parental house
for near about two years and thereafter
under pressure of relatives, she was taken
to matrimonial home by her husband, but
all the accused persons used to torture her
for
want
of
additional
dowry.
On
29.8.1985 at about 6 o'clock in the
morning, they all conspired to kill her by
pouring kerosene-oil on her and started
beating her. Anyhow, she ran away from
there and went to the house of her cousin
(brother).

3. On the basis of aforesaid report, a
Case Crime bearing No.1229 of 1985 was
registered at Kotwali, Banda, against all the
accused-respondents for aforementioned
offences.

4. Investigation of the case was taken
up by Investigating Officer, who visited the
spot and prepared the site-plan. Medical
examination of victim was conducted and
her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
was recorded by competent Magistrate.
After
completing
the
investigation,
Investigating Officer has submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. The
case being exclusively triable by court of
session was committed for trial to the court
of session by competent Magistrate.

5. Learned trial-court framed charges
against accused persons under Section 147,
342 read with Section 149, 307 read with
Section 149 and Section 498-A read with
Section 149 IPC. Additional charge under
Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC was
framed against Navratan Lal. Accused
persons denied charges and claimed to be
tried.

6. To bring home the charges, the
prosecution produced following witnesses,
namely:

1.
Victim
PW1
2.
Laxman Prasad
PW2
3.
Dr. Ashok Upadhyay
PW3
4.
Hawaldar Singh
PW4

7. In support of the ocular version of
the witnesses, following documents were
produced and contents were proved by
leading evidence:

1.
Written Report
Ex.ka1
2.
F.I.R.
Ex.ka3
3.
Injury Report
Ex.ka2
4.
Site-plan
Ex.ka5

8. After completing prosecution
evidence, accused persons were examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. One witness,
namely, Prem Bihari (DW1) was examined
by accused persons in defence.

9.

We
have
heard
Shri
N.K.Srivastava, learned AGA for the Stateappellant and perused the record.
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Before we embark on testimony
and the judgment of the Court below, the
contours
for
interfering
in
Criminal
Appeals where accused has been held to be
non guilty would require to be discussed.

11. The principles, which would
govern and regulate the hearing of an
appeal by this Court against an order of
acquittal, passed by the trial Court, have
been very succinctly explained by the Apex
Court in catena of decisions. In the case of
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State
of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39,
the Apex Court has narrated the powers of
the High Court in appeal against the order
of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the
Apex Court has observed as under:

"54. In any event the High Court
entertained an appeal treating to be an
appeal against acquittal, it was in fact
exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even
while exercising an appellate power
against a judgment of acquittal, the High
Court should have borne in mind the well
settled principles of law that where two
view are possible, the appellate Court
should not interfere with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the Court below."

12.

Further,
in
the
case
of
Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex
Court laid down the following principles;

"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, 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
curtain extensive powers of an appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasis 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."

13. Thus, it is a settled principle that
while exercising appellate powers, even if
two
reasonable
views/conclusions
are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate Court should not
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Navratan Lal & Ors.
951
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court.

14. Even in the case of State of Goa
vs. Sanjay Thakran and another, reported
in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has
reiterated the powers of the High Court in
such cases. In para 16 of the said decision,
the Court has observed as under:

"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is
apparent that while exercising the powers
in appeal against the order of acquittal the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily
interfere with the order of acquittal unless
the approach of the lower Court is vitiated
by some manifest illegality and the
conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore,
the decision is to be characterized as
perverse. Merely because two views are
possible, the Court of appeal would not
take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below.
However, the appellate Court has a power
to review the evidence if it is of the view
that the conclusion arrived at by the Court
below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and
ignored the material evidence on record. A
duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in
such circumstances, to re-appreciate the
evidence to arrive to a just decision on the
basis of material placed on record to find
out whether any of the accused is
connected with the commission of the
crime he is charged with."

15. Similar principle has been laid
down by the Apex Court in cases of State
of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh and
others, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in
Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s vs. State of
MP, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the
powers, which this Court may exercise
against an order of acquittal, are well
settled.

16. In the case of Luna Ram vs.
Bhupat Singh and others, reported in
(2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10
and 11 has held as under:

"10. The High Court has noted that
the prosecution version was not clearly
believable. Some of the so called eye
witnesses stated that the deceased died
because his ankle was twisted by an
accused.
Others
said
that
he
was
strangulated. It was the case of the
prosecution that the injured witnesses were
thrown out of the bus. The doctor who
conducted the postmortem and examined
the witnesses had categorically stated that
it was not possible that somebody would
throw a person out of the bus when it was
in running condition.

11. Considering the parameters of
appeal against the judgment of acquittal,
we are not inclined to interfere in this
appeal. The view of the High Court cannot
be termed to be perverse and is a possible
view on the evidence."

17. Even in a recent decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and
another vs. State Representatives by the
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported
in AIR 2013 SC 321, the Apex Court in
para 4 has held as under:

"4. It is not in dispute that the trial
Court, on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence led in by the
prosecution and defence, acquitted the
accused in respect of the charges leveled
against them. On appeal by the State, the
High Court, by impugned order, reversed
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the said decision and convicted the accused
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel
for the appellants very much emphasized
that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in upsetting the order of
acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the
scope and power of the High Court in an
appeal filed against the order of acquittal.
This Court in a series of decisions has
repeatedly laid down that as the first
appellate court the High Court, even while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
was also entitled, and obliged as well, to
scan through and if need be reappreciate
the entire evidence, though while hoosing
to interfere only the court should find an
absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis
of the evidence on record and not merely
because the High Court could take one
more possible or a different view only.
Except the above, where the matter of the
extent and depth of consideration of the
appeal is concerned, no distinctions or
differences in approach are envisaged in
dealing with an appeal as such merely
because one was against conviction or the
other against an acquittal. [Vide State of
Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others,
(2004) 5 SCC 573]"

18. It is also a settled legal position
that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court
is not required to rewrite the judgment or to
give fresh reasonings, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to
be just and proper. Such principle is laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy, AIR
1981, SC 1417, wherein it is held as under:

" ... This Court has observed in Girija
Nandini
Devi
V.
Bigendra
Nandini
Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:(AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate
Court on the evidence to repeat the
narration of the evidence or to reiterate the
reasons given by the trial Court expression
of general agreement with the reasons
given by the Court the decision of which is
under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

19. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Shivasharanappa and
others vs. State of Karnataka, JT 2013 (7)
SC 66 has held as under:

"That appellate Court is empowered to
reappreciate the entire evidence, though,
certain other principles are also to be
adhered to and it has to be kept in mind
that
acquittal
results
into
double
presumption of innocence."

20. Further, in the case of State of
Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma,
(2013) 14 SCC 153, the Apex Court has
held as under:

"The law on the issue is well settled
that demand of illegal gratification is sine
qua non for constituting an offence under
the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted
money is not sufficient to convict the
accused when substantive evidence in the
case is not reliable, unless there is evidence
to prove payment of bribe or to show that
the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe.
Mere receipt of the amount by the accused
is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the
absence of any evidence with regard to
demand and acceptance of the amount as
illegal gratification. Hence, the burden
rests on the accused to displace the
statutory presumption raised under Section
20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record
evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to
establish with reasonable probability, that
the money was accepted by him, other than
as a motive or reward as referred to in
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Navratan Lal & Ors.
953
Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking
the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the
court
is
required
to
consider
the
explanation offered by the accused, if any,
only on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability and not on the touchstone of
proof
beyond
all
reasonable
doubt.
However, before the accused is called upon
to explain how the amount in question was
found in his possession, the foundational
facts
must
be
established
by
the
prosecution.
The
complainant
is
an
interested and partisan witness concerned
with the success of the trap and his
evidence must be tested in the same way as
that of any other interested witness. In a
proper case, the court may look for
independent
corroboration
before
convincing the accused person."

21. The Apex Court recently in
Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018)
7 SCC 219, has laid down the principles for
laying down the powers of appellate court
in re-appreciating the evidence in a case
where the State has preferred an appeal
against acquittal, which read as follows:

"10. It is by now well settled that the
Appellate Court hearing the appeal filed
against the judgment and order of acquittal
will not overrule or otherwise disturb the
Trial Court's acquittal if the Appellate
Court does not find substantial and
compelling reasons for doing so. If the
Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the
facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's
decision was based on erroneous view of
law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely
to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if
the entire approach of the Trial Court in
dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was
manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if
the Trial Court has ignored the
evidence or misread the material evidence
or has ignored material documents like
dying declaration/report of the ballistic
expert etc. the same may be construed as
substantial and compelling reasons and the
first appellate court may interfere in the
order of acquittl. However, if the view
taken by the Trial Court while acquitting
the accused is one of the possible views
under the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Appellate Court generally will not
interfere with the order of acquittal
particularly
in
the
absence
of
the
aforementioned factors.

.........................It is relevant to note
the observations of this Court in the case of
Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha &
Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606, which reads
thus:

"21.There is no embargo on the
appellate court reviewing the evidence
upon which an order of acquittal is based.
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not
be interfered with because the presumption
of innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by acquittal. The golden
thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases
is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and the other to
his innocence, the view which is favourable
to the accused should be adopted. The
paramount consideration of the court is to
ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which
may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no
less than from the conviction of an
innocent. In a case where admissible
evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate
court
to
re-appreciate
the
evidence in a case where the accused has
been
acquitted,
for
the
purpose
of
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ascertaining as to whether any of the
accused committed any offence or not."

22. The Apex Court recently in
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of
Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750, has held that
the appellate court is reversing the trial
court's order of acquittal, it should give
proper weight and consideration to the
presumption of innocence in favour of
accused, and to the principle that such a
presumption sands reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court and in
Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019)
18 SCC 161 held that judgment of
acquittal, where two views are possible,
should not be set aside, even if view
formed by appellate court may be a more
probable one, interference with acquittal
can only be justified when it is based on a
perverse view.

23.

The
victim
has
levelled
allegations
against
all
the
accused
persons/respondents that they tortured her
for want of additional dowry and tried to
kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her
body. It is also the charge against the
accused Navratan Lal that he tried to
commit rape also with the victim. To prove
the
allegations
made
against
the
respondents, prosecution has produced two
witnesses of facts, namely, the victim
(PW1) and Laxman Prasad (PW2). Laxman
Prasad, who has examined as PW2 is
cousin of the victim. Learned trial court has
scrutinized his testimony and put the
conclusion that he was interested witness. It
is concluded by the trial court that he is not
the eye-witness of the facts, which took
place inside the house of the victim. It is
admitted fact in defence that PW2 was not
present inside the house of the victim,
therefore, learned trial court has rightly
opined that he could not depose the version
of facts, which took place inside the house.
Moreover, his testimony was not found
reliable. Learned trial-court has examined
the statement of victim (PW1) also and
concluded
that
there
are
several
contradictions
in
her
evidence
and
statements under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C.

24. We also threadbare examined the
statements of witnesses of fact. Victim
(PW1) has nowhere mentioned the demand
of additional dowry in the form of the gold
and her torture in her statement under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. There is no
evidence of fact that when she ran out of
her home, anybody saw her. It is alleged by
the victim that she ran out from her in-laws
house and reached to the house of her
cousin (brother), but no such witness is
produced by prosecution, who had seen her
between the two houses. Laxman Prasad
(PW2) is her cousin and admittedly he is
not the eye-witness of the facts relating to
alleged offences inside the house of the
victim. The sole evidence of victim does
not
find
any
corroboration
by
any
independent or impartial witness. There is
no evidence of this fact also on the record
that after coming out of the house of her inlaws, the victim had raised any alarm or
any hue and cry outside the house, which
seems unnatural. Hence, keeping in view
the evidence put forward by PW1 and PW2
as also the conduct of the victim, learned
trial-court has rightly concluded that
charges levelled against the respondents are
not proved.

25. In view of above, we are of the
considered opinion that no two views are
possible and we cannot take different view
from that taken by the learned trial-court.
We also do not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order, therefore,
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Samar Nath Yadav & Ors.
955
we have no other option, but to concur with
the findings recorded by the learned trial
Judge.

26. The appeal lacks merit and is
dismissed, accordingly.

27. The record and proceedings be
sent back to the court-below.
----------
(2022)01ILR A955
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Government Appeal No. 2781 of 2012

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Samar Nath Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
--

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Government
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
147,148,149,302/149,506 - The Code
of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section
313 - Criminal law ammendment Act -
section 7 (Para - )

Dispute regarding construction of house
on the residential lease land between the
accused
and
cousin
brother
of
the
complainant
-
Accused
stopped
the
construction
on
the
disputed
land
-
threatened to kill in case construction
would be done - accused after trial was
acquitted - hence present appeal.(Para -
1to5)
HELD:-Prosecution failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt . P.W.-1 and P.W.-2
shattered their case in cross examination.
Complainant did not receive a single injury.
Prosecution failed to establish the case and the
circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Leave
to appeal application rejected.(Para -16,17 )

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. The present appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order of acquittal
of
the
accused-respondents
dated
07.04.2012 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Jaunpur in
Sessions Trial No.256 of 2003 (State Vs.
Samar Nath and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.892 of 2002, for offences under
Sections 147, 302/149 I.P.C., Police Station
Kotwali, District Jaunpur.

2. As per prosecution case, Rajeev
Ratan lodged first information report
alleging that there is a dispute regarding
construction of house on the residential
lease land between the accused and cousin
brother of the complainant. Accused
stopped the construction on the disputed
land and threatened to kill in case
construction would be done. Complainant,
further alleged that while coming along
with his father Dr. Bhagwan Das from the
city on 09.11.2002 and as soon as, they
reached Nai Ganj Tiraha at 4.15 evening,
accused Samar Nath, Lal Sahab, Shailesh,
Raju
Yadav
and Suraj
stopped
the
complainant and his father. Accused started
beating his father with iron rod, hockey
stick. In the meantime, Lallan Yadav, Anil
Kumar and younger brother of the
complainant Sanjeev Ratan came on the
spot
and
accused
ran
away.
The
complainant brought his injured father to