Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3260
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shashi Kant Gupta, Vijay Lakshmi, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Adalat - Respondent
Government Appeal No. - 4842 of 2008
Decided On : 22-12-2015
For the Petitioner: G.A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle governing circumstantial evidence and the standard for interfering with an order of acquittal.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Circumstantial Evidence - The court upheld the acquittal of the accused based on the well-settled law regarding circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of events and the possibility of multiple reasonable views before interfering with an order of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The State appellant sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under section 302 IPC by the lower court. The court carefully perused the impugned judgment and found no factual or legal error in the assessment of evidence by the court below.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was weak and shaky, and the lower court had given cogent, convincing, and satisfactory reasons for the acquittal. It concluded that the order of acquittal did not suffer from any infirmity and therefore rejected the application seeking leave to appeal, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State appellant should be granted leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under section 302 IPC by the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the well-settled law regarding circumstantial evidence, stating that all links of events must be completed to form a complete chain. It also highlighted the principle that interference with an order of acquittal should only be done when the findings are perverse, illegal, and against the material available on record.
Final Decision: The application seeking leave to appeal was rejected, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State appellant/applicant and perused the material on record.
2. This application has been filed by the State appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 23.02.2008, passed in Sessions Trial No. 348 of 2006, under section 302 IPC, P.S. GRP Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Gorakhpur whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.
3. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court below.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant failed to demonstrate that the observations of the court below were factually incorrect.
5. We have carefully perused the judgement passed by the lower court. We do not find any factual or legal error in the assessment of evidence by the court below while acquitting the accused respondent. Moreover, the view taken by the court below is a possible view. Perusal of the judgement shows that this a case of circumstantial evidence and it is a well settled law that in the case of circumstantial evidence all the links of events must be completed, so as to form a complete chain. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is very weak and shaky. The learned lower court has discussed the evidence point-wise and no other inference except that arrived at by the trial court could be drawn. It is also well settled law that, if two views are possible and the trial judge has taken one view, which is reasonable and plausible and appeals to the judicial mind, then the High Court should refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal. Interference with the order of acquittal should only be done when the findings are perverse, illegal and against the material available on record. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order. It does not suffer from any infirmity. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
