IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence and emphasized the need for corroborative evidence for confessions made to R.P.F. officials, affirming the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Ref: Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal)

1. The present government appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.4.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Northern Railway, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 592 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2013 under Sections 154 and 174 of the Railways Act, 1989, Police Station R.P.F. Post Shahjahanpur, Moradabad Division, Northern Railway whereby accused-respondent was acquitted.

2. Heard Shri Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Government of India at length. None is present for the accused-respondent.

3. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that boom lock post of the Railway Department was broken by a Truck bearing Registration No. UP-26-9171 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and the driver of the said Truck fled away from the place of occurrence but the Truck was taken into possession by the police. F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 101 of 2013 under Sections 154 and 174 of the Railways Act, 1989 was lodged. After investigation, the police report was submitted to the court for trial. Copies of necessary papers were given to the accused and his statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the incident. Trial started and during trial, the prosecution produced as many as four prosecution witnesses. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced number of documents, which were duly exhibited and proved during trial. Accused respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the factum of incident and the truthfulness of prosecution evidence. The learned Magistrate after thrashing the evidence and critically analysing them has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused Shiva Kant Bajpayee was set at liberty and was acquitted.

4. Aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the instant Government Appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the State through D.S.C./R.P.F. Moradabad Division/appellant has been filed.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant State submitted that in this case the appellant had confessed his guilt before the officer of R.P.F. conducting an enquiry and the said confession is not hit by the provisions of Section 25 Evidence Act, as the officer of R.P.F. does not fall into the category of ‘Investigating Officer’ and his status is not the same as it is in a case of Police Officer investigating the case and hence his confession made before the officer of the R.P.F. is admissible in evidence and his confessional statement in this case cannot be excluded from the category of ‘evidence’. It is further submitted that since the trial court totally ignored the confessional statement made by the accused himself, which was fully admissible in evidence, the findings of acquittal of the accused respondent is illegal and not sustainable. It is also submitted that on the basis of other oral and documentary evidence on record the prosecution has established and proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and acquitted the accused respondent by wrong appreciation of the evidence available on record. Findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order are illegal and perverse warranting interference by this Court.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant-State placed reliance upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balakishan A. Devidayal vs. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 4 SCC 600 and a decision of this Court in State vs. Shivendra Pratap Singh, 1979 SCC Online All 377.

7. Since it is a an appeal against the acquittal, it will be relevant to note the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the appreciation of evidence and approach to be