Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAHUL CHATURVEDI, NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Anwar Alam And Others – Respondent
Government Appeal No. 97 of 2024
Decided on : 27-04-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED - Sections 395, 397, 120-B IPC; Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act; Section 5 Explosive Act - The court discussed the essential ingredients required to establish the offences under the cited sections, emphasizing the need for credible evidence and the presumption of innocence. The trial court's findings were upheld, noting that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that on 15.11.2020, 22 accused persons committed robbery at a shop in Mubarakpur, resulting in grievous injuries to several individuals. The accused were identified by witnesses, and a charge sheet was filed. However, after trial, the court acquitted all accused due to insufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies and noted that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the alleged offences. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to support the charges under the relevant sections of law.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused under Sections 395, 397, 120-B IPC, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and the Explosive Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in appeals against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The presumption of innocence remains strong, and if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, the one favoring the accused should prevail.
Final Decision: The application for leave to appeal was rejected, and the government appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal)
1. This application has been preferred by the learned Stated counsel under Section 395/397, 120-B I.P.C., 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 5 Explosive Act with the prayer that the leave to appeal be granted against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-02, Azamgarh in S.T. No. 171 of 2003 (State Versus Khalilurrahman and Ors) arising out of case crime no. 425H of 2000, P.S.-Mubarakpur, District- Azamgarh, whereby the accused persons/ respondents total 22 in number namely 1. Anwar Alam son of Gulam Rasool, 2. Matiurrahman son of Gulam Rasul 3. Gufran son of Abdul Rashid 4. Mohd. Faisal son of Abdul Rashid 5. Munir son of Hazi Khalil 6. Ayub son of Mohd. Hasan 7. Mohd. Shahid son of Abdul Mani 8. Jamal Akhtar son of Hazi Abdul Mani 9. Faridul Haq son of Abdul Zabbar 10. Asrar Ahmad son of Hazi Irshad 11. Nausad son of Hazi Gaffar 12. Shakeel alia Jheenak son of Masood Ahmad 13. Inamul Haq son of Habirruhman 14. Abdul Mannan son of Abdul Gaffar 15. Shamshul Haq son of Hazi Ali Ahmad 16. Ayub Fauji son of Suleman 17. Zameel son of Wazir Ahmad 18. Kazi Idrish son of Kazi Mohd. Ahmad 19. Mohd. Salim son of Shakir 20. Wahiduzama son of Abdul Bari 21. Shamim son of Iklakh 22. Mukhtar Ahmad son of Nesar Ahmad were held not guilty and thereby acquitted by the Court.
2. The prosecution in this case came forward with a story that on 15.11.2020 at 7.00 pm when the informant Azadar Husain was present in his shop at Kasba Mubarakpur, the named accused persons 26 in number carrying desi pistol, ballambh and knife came over there, and started robbery in the shop and also made fire from desi pistol and threw bombs with intention to kill the informant and other persons present there. In the incident Ehtesham Husain, Ali Ahmad, Musaddik Husain, Makar Ali sustained grevious injuries, some other persons also got injured and the accused persons were identified in the light. The sufferers lost a huge monetary loss in the robbery. The investigation started and charge sheet was submitted and after trial a total number of 22 persons were acquitted. It is to be noted here that four accused persons expired during course of trial and the trial was abated in respect of them.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 7 witnesses. P.W.1 Azadar Husain, the informant, P.W.2 Ehtesham, the injured, P.W.3 Mustakim Husain, the injured, P.W.4 Mujtaba Husain, the injured, P.W.5 Dr. B.N. Chaubey, P.W.6 S.I. Raj Bahadur Singh, and P.W.7 Cons. Ram Bachan Ram.
4. As documentary evidence the prosecution has relied upon Ex.Ka-1-written report, Ex.Ka-2 to Ex.Ka-7 Injury reports of injured Ale Ahmad, Ehtesham Husain, Musaddik Husain, Kamar Ali, Layak Husain and Mukhtar Ahmad, Ex.Ka-8 map, Ex.Ka-9 and Ex.Ka-10 charge sheets, Ex.Ka-11 FIR, Ex.Ka-12 registration G.D.
5. The incriminating circumstances and evidence were put to the accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they claimed the prosecution evidence to be false and fabricated and in defence copy of FIR and charge sheet in case no. 425-I, deposition of P.W.2 in S.T. No. 395 of 2023 and deposition of P.W.1 in S.T. No. 359 of 2023 were produced.
6. P.W.1 Azadar Husain, the informant, while proving written report as Ext.A-1 in his examination in chief supports the prosecution version and named 19 accused persons. He stated that all the accused persons assaulted with bomb and desi pistol in his shop in the course of commission of robbery. Husain and Mukhtar present in the shop sustained grievous injuries then the assailants committed robbery in other shops and fled away. Since the electricity was on, they were well identified.
7. In the same manner P.W.2 Ehtesham Ali has also corroborated the prosecution version and named 18 accused persons and has corroborated their criminal acts and as stated by P.W.1 Ali Ahmad, Kamar Husa
Point of Law : The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction, or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its conclusi....
The principle of double presumption in favor of the accused and the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that two reasonable views should not disturb the trial ....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal is upheld when evidence is insufficient to establish guilt.
The appellate court upholds acquittals when identifications are not beyond reasonable doubt; conviction for possession of firearms was maintained but sentence reduced to time already served.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
