# State of U.P v. Yasin Beg

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 898
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-13
- **Case number:** Government Appeal Defective No. 103 of 2021
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-yasin-beg-47328
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, S.378 - Appeal against acquittal -
Presumption of innocence runs in favour
of the accused right from the stage of
commencement of trial and the same
continues upto the Appellate stage - In
case finding of acquittal is recorded by the
trial court and the order of acquittal is
found to be based on material on record
then presumption of innocence is fortified
and strengthened (Para 14)
B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, S.378 - Appeal against acquittal -
Even in cases where two views regarding
the same incident are possible then the
view adhered to and adopted by the trial
court will not be disturbed if material on
record justifies the finding so recorded
(Para 15)
Dismissed. (E-4)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bhaskaran
Pillai
and
Anr.
MANU/SC/0731/1997: AIR 1997 SC 2703;
Printers (Mysore). Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed and
Ors. MANU/SC/0307/2004: (2004) 4 SCC 460;
Bangalore Development Authority v. R.
Hanumaiah MANU/SC/0988/2005: (2005) 12
SCC 508; and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd.
and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.
MANU/SC/0956/2011: (2011) 9 SCC 354).

22.In view of the above, the law can
be crystallized to mean, that once the land is
acquired and it vests in the State, free from all
encumbrances, it is not the concern of the land
owner, whether the land is being used for the
purpose for which it was acquired or for any
other purpose. He becomes persona non-grata
once the land vests in the State. He has a right
to only receive compensation for the same,
unless the acquisition proceeding is itself
challenged. The State neither has the requisite
power to reconvey the land to the personinterested, nor can such person claim any right
of restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless
there is some statutory amendment to this
effect."

30.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that at this belated stage we
cannot permit the petitioner to revive the dead
and stale claims. The stale and dead claims
cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the
pretext of enactment of Section 24. In view of
the law laid down by this Court in Atul
Sharma & Ors. (Supra) and Jagbeer Singh &
Ors. (Supra) Section 24 of the Act, 2013 would
not be attracted in the present matter. Even
otherwise as per the parameters of the
Constitution
Bench
mandate
in
Indore
Development Authority (Supra) as averred in
detail, the claim of the petitioner does not fall
under Section 24 of the Act, 2013.

31. In the facts and circumstances, so far
as determination of quantum of compensation,
principles will have to be applied in relation to
acquisition made by Parishad under the
Adhiniyam, 1965.

32. Consequently, for all the reasons
aforesaid, the reliefs claimed in the writ
petition with regard to lapse of acquisition
proceeding cannot be available to the
petitioner. However, it is always open to
the
petitioner
to
move
appropriate
application to get the compensation.

33. The writ petition stands disposed
of accordingly.

34. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner
alongwith a self attested identity proof of
the said person (preferably Aadhar Card)
mentioning the mobile number to which
the said Aadhar Card is linked.

35. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)08ILR A898
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Government Appeal Defective No. 103 of 2021

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Yasin Beg ...Respondent
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Yasin Beg
899
Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, S.378 - Appeal against acquittal -
Presumption of innocence runs in favour
of the accused right from the stage of
commencement of trial and the same
continues upto the Appellate stage - In
case finding of acquittal is recorded by the
trial court and the order of acquittal is
found to be based on material on record
then presumption of innocence is fortified
and strengthened (Para 14)
B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, S.378 - Appeal against acquittal -
Even in cases where two views regarding
the same incident are possible then the
view adhered to and adopted by the trial
court will not be disturbed if material on
record justifies the finding so recorded
(Para 15)
Dismissed. (E-4)
List of Cases cited:
1. Kanhaiya Lal & ors. Vs St. of Raj. AIR 2013
SC 1940
2. Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi Vs Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad; 2013 (4)
Supreme 450
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh,
learned Brief Holder for the State-appellant
and perused the material brought on record.

2. The instant appeal is reported to be
filed beyond time by 1529 days, as per the
Stamp Reporting Section.

3. In view of prevailing pandemic
Covid-19, reasons assigned in support of
the delay condonation application as well
as submissions, the delay in filing the
instant appeal is condoned. The instant
appeal is treated to be filed within time.

4. Delay condonation application is,
accordingly, allowed.

5. Office is directed to allot regular
number to this appeal.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for
the State-appellant has requested for
hearing of this appeal by pressing leave to
appeal application, therefore, we are
considering the leave to appeal as such.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh,
learned Brief Holder for the State-appellant
and perused the material brought on record.

2. The instant Government Appeal has
been preferred by the State-appellant
against judgement and order of acquittal
dated 13.10.20216, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act
Bareilly in Sessions Trial No.609 of 2010
(State vs. Yasin Beg) and Sessions Trial
No.610 of 2010 (State versus Yasin Beg),
under Sections - 302/34 I.P.C. and 25 Arms
Act, Police Station - Siroli, District -
Bareilly.

3. We have been persuaded that in this
case, there was plethora of evidence but
casual approach was adopted in relation
thereto by the trial judge, who failed to
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appreciate properly and to take notice of
the clinching circumstances, which were
very much apparent on record, pointing to
the guilt of the accused.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State
has added that primarily, it is worth
mentioning that the circumstances of a case
cannot tell a lie, whereas, a person can !. In
this case, the circumstances are consistently
intertwined and placed so innocuously as to
point to the guilt of the accused. Merely
because of the failure of the investigating
officer in regard to carrying out certain
formalities, modalities and technicalities,
the entire prosecution story cannot be
thrown out, once it is established that the
accused-
respondent
Yasin
Beg
was
conniving with the other co-accused - say
Akeeb and Yamin, and he had a strong
motive and cause for committing the
offence, then there was no point that he
should have been given benefit of doubt on
account of fact that nothing exist against
him involving him in the commission of the
crime.

5. The learned counsel continued and
added that irony of the case is that the two
main accused against whom evidence existed
and the F.I.R. entailed a detailed description
for taking away the victim with them in the
night of 9.3.2009 at about 9:00 p.m., there is
nothing which may generate any suspicion
regarding the complicity and involvement of
the accused because the deceased Raisuddin
son of the informant was having love affair
with the daughter of the accused-respondent.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of this
case, the testimony on record was plausible
one and satisfactorily pointing to the guilt of
the accused. However, the reasoning given by
the trial court is on the face perverse and
cannot be sustained as such vis a vis the
evidence on record and the prevailing
circumstances of the case.

7. So far as the factum of recovery is
concerned,
the
police
personnel,
who
effectuated the recovery have very much
proved the factum of recovery. However,
their evidence cannot be brushed aside and
minimized merely on account of absence of
independent witness.

8. We have considered the submissions
and
the
argument
advanced
by
the
prosecution and also scanned the entire
judgment - the certified copy of it as has been
brought before us - whereby we gather that in
this case the judgment and order of acquittal
was delivered by the trial court on 13.10.2016
after taking into account each and every
aspect of this case, it can be observed that
evidence
was
properly
appraised
and
circumstances were also considered by the
court below.

9. It so happened that some F.I.R. was
lodged on 10.03.2009 at about 11:15 a.m.
with the Police Station ? Siroli, District ?
Bareilly at Case Crime No. 81 of 2009, under
Section ? 302 read with Section - 34 I.P.C.
During
course
of
investigation,
some
recovery was effectuated against the accusedrespondent and a case under Section ? 25
Arms Act was also lodged against the
accused at Case Crime No. 696 of 2009,
Police Station ? Siroli, District ? Bareilly. The
motive for committing the crime is no doubt
the alleged illicit relationship in context
between the daughter of the accusedrespondent and Raisuddin son of the
informant.
After
completion
of
the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the accused-respondent-Yaseen Beg.

10. It is noticeable from the judgment
itself that the other two accused say Aqib
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Yasin Beg
901
and Yameen, both the named accused in the
F.I.R. were found to be juvenile, therefore,
after the submission of the charge-sheet,
their trial was separated and they were tried
separately by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Bareilly.

11. Upon careful perusal of the
testimony of the fact witnesses, to be
particular P.W.1- Mohd. Hasmuddin son of
Vikaruddin and P.W.2- Atikuddin son of
Fatruddin, we come across fact that their
version cannot be said to be free from
inherent infirmities, for the reason that as
per the testimony of P.W.-1, he came to
hear about the sound of fire from some
place one kilometer away from the place of
occurrence
where
this
witness
was
standing, still he says before the trial court
that he saw the occurrence and the present
accused respondent Yasin Beg fired two
shots at the deceased, while Akib was
pointing gun at the deceased and Yamin
made first shot at the deceased. This goes
to show by itself that the things have been
tried to be improved and testimony of the
witnesses of fact is full of embellishment.
Their presence on the spot instantly cannot
be accepted and inferred, if his testimony
regarding the incident is taken to be true,
for the reason that he himself says that he
heard the sound of fire almost one
kilometer
away
from
the
place
of
occurrence, then there is no point that he
witnessed the incident as such and his
explanation that because of fear, the
accused-respondent Yasin Beg could not be
named in the F.I.R. is also not sustainable
in the eye of law.

12. Once the testimony of witnesses
of fact becomes doubtful and suspicious
regarding the occurrence itself, then in
view of the recovery of the illegal
countrymade gun while that too has not
been proved within the four corners of law,
goes to show that the factum of recovery
cannot
be
said
to
be
satisfactorily
established by the prosecution. It is
substantial law that merely recovery does
not connect one with the commission of the
offence, unless cogent, consistent and
direct or clinching circumstantial evidence
is brought forth to prove the guilt of the
accused-respondent by the prosecution.

13. In that way, the trial court has
taken note of each and every fact relevant
and the circumstances of the case and has
rightly calibrated the testimony of the
witnesses of fact as well as that of the
formal witnesses and has analyzed the
circumstances properly and after churning
the merit of this case, has entertained doubt
regarding the complicity of the accusedrespondent in commission of the crime. No
doubt, some suspicion exist regarding
cause of action being implicit or existing in
the mind of the accused respondent that his
daughter was having some relationship
with the deceased - son of the informant,
but this aspect is different from fact, which
was required to be proved by the
prosecution
in
accordance
with
the
procedure and the law laid down, which
has not been done in the present case. The
illicit relationship here in this case may
serve as the very motive behind the crime.
So it is apparent that the finding of the trial
court cannot be faulted with, once it is
found to be based on material on record
and the appreciation is based on analogy
and reason supported by material. That
being the case, the appellate court would
not come to the rescue of the prosecution
merely on the basis of several possibilities
in the shape of suspicion and that cannot
form the basis of conviction. In order to
achieve a conviction, the things are
required to be proved beyond all reasonable
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
doubt, which has not been done in this
case.

14. Presumption of innocence runs in
favour of the accused right from the stage
of commencement of trial and the same
continues upto the Appellate stage. In case
finding of acquittal is recorded by the trial
court and the order of acquittal is found to
be based on material on record then
presumption of innocence is fortified and
strengthened in favour of the accused as
has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan; AIR 2013 SC 1940.

15. Even in cases where two views
regarding the same incident are possible
then the view adhered to and adopted by
the trial court will not be disturbed if
material on record justifies the finding so
recorded as has been held by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Bhadragiri Venkata
Ravi v. Public Prosecutor High Court of
A.P., Hyderabad; 2013 (4) Supreme 450.

16. For the reasons aforesaid, we
affirm and approve the judgment and order
of acquittal dated 13.10.20216, passed by
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
E.C. Act Bareilly in Sessions Trial No.609
of 2010 (State vs. Yasin Beg) and Sessions
Trial No.610 of 2010 (State versus Yasin
Beg), under Sections - 302/34 I.P.C. and 25
Arms Act, Police Station - Siroli, District -
Bareilly.

17. Thus, leave to appeal is refused.

18. Consequently, the instant appeal
being insignificant is dismissed.

19. Let a copy of this order be
certified to the trial court concerned.
----------
(2021)08ILR A902
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Government Appeal Defective No. 113 of 2021

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Aslam & Ors. ...Respondenta

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Evidence Law - Evidence Act, 1872 -Section
24 - Extra-judicial confession - Evidentiary
value - If the circumstances of a case are
suspicious then it is rule of cautious that the
court should normally look for corroboration
of it from some independent source - Though,
it is not imperative that an extra-judicial
confession,
to
be
admissible
must
be
supported by independent evidence, fact or
circumstance - If Extra-judicial confession
truthful version beyond shadow of suspicion it
is admissible (Para 10)

B. Evidence Law - Evidence Act,1872 -
Section 3 - Circumstantial evidence - last
seen
theory
-
in
case
based
on
circumstantial evidence, all the links in the
chain
of
circumstances
must
be
consistently intertwined established and
must leave aside every hypothesis of
innocence of the accused and it must
indicate invariably that the accused and
accused alone were the author of the
crime and none other (Para 11)

Dismissed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.