IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddharth, Subhash Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Sooraj Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 4803 of 2010
Decided On : 13-11-2024
JUDGMENT :
Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri R.B. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Anshul Tiwari and Sri Kuldeep Jauhari, learned counsel for opposite parties; Sri Prem Shanker Prasad, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.06.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sahjahanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 1158 of 2008 (State Vs. Lakhpat and Others) under sections-147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, Case Crime No. 94 of 2008, Police Station-Jaytipur, District-Sahjahanpur, whereby respondents have been acquitted from all the charges by trial court.
3. The prosecution case, as per F.I.R. is that, it was the time of festival of holi , but mother of informant had died, therefore, celebrations were not being made. On 22.03.2008, the family members of the informant were sitting under a neem tree in front of house of Buddh Pal and waiting for Akhat ( offerings in holi fire), when at about 01:30 p.m., respondents, Lakhpat, Ritesh, Pintoo, Gauri, Shyam Pal, Atar Singh, Narveer, Brijmohan, Sarvesh and Ram Mohan armed with licensed and unlicensed weapons came and fired upon the informant and his family members, namely, Smt. Rajeshwari, Sunli, Krishna Pal and Sooraj Pal. On account of firing, Sunil Kumar son of Rampal, Rajeshwari son of Rampal, Sooraj Pal and Buddh Pal sons of Ram Charan and Krishna Pal son of Ram Charan got seriously injured. Netrpal, Smt. Nirmala, Nand Ram, Hari Ram and informant, Anil Kumar, did not suffered any injury. The injured persons were taken in a private jeep to Shahjahanpur Hospital for treatment. The people in the locality were afraid and not willing to lodge the F.I.R. It was lodged at 14:30 hours on the same day by Anil Kumar, P.W.-1.
4. The trial court framed charges against the respondents under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC. The respondents denied the charges and sought trial.
5. To prove the prosecution case, prosecution produced following witnesses:-P.W.-1, Anil Kumar; P.W.-2, Smt. Rajeswari; P.W.-3, Sunil Kumar; P.W.-4, Krishna Pal; P.W.-5, Sooraj Pal; P.W.-6, Dr. K.B. Jain; P.W.-7, Rajendra Singh,S.H.O/Investigating Officer of the case; P.W.-8, Sub Inspector, Omkar Pandey; P.W.-9,Dr. Parmendra Maheshwari; P.W.-10, Dr. Munish Tandon; P.W.-11,Sub-Inspector, Dinesh Kumar and P.W.12- Sub-Inspector, Ram Bahadur Singh.
6. Statements of the accused/respondent nos. 2 to 11 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they alleged false implication.
7. P.W.-1, Anil Kumar, stated that deceased, Buddh Pal, was his uncle. As per allegations in the F.I.R., the respondents caused alleged incident wherein Sameer Kumar, Rajeshwari, Sooraj Pal, Buddh Pal, and Krisha Pal suffered gun shot injuries while Netrapal, Nirmala, Nand Ram and Hari Ram and the informant, who were present on the spot did not suffered any injuries. All of them had seen the incident. After some time, Buddh Pal, died. Other persons were medically examined and he got the F.I.R. lodged by giving an application at the police station written by Abhishek on his dictation.
8. P.W.-2, Smt. Rajeshwari, admitted the incident, but stated that the respondents did not caused any incident before her nor anyone got injured.
9. P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, also admitted the incident, but did not assigned any role to respondents of causing injuries to the injured or the deceased.
10. P.W.-5, Sooraj Pal, supported the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. He further stated that respondent, Lakhpat, was armed with rifle, Atar Singh was armed with a single barrel licensed gun, Pintoo Singh, Ritesh Singh, Shayam Pal and Gauri Singh were armed with pistols. Narveer was having single barrel licensed gun, Brij Mohan, was having a pistol, Sarvesh was having rifle of Netrapal and Ram Mohan was having single barrel licensed gun. All of them had fired and resultantly, Buddh Pal, died. Sunil Kumar, Krishna P
AI
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence and emphasized the presumption of innocence, requiring compelling reasons to overturn such decisions.
The presumption of innocence remains unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in appeals against acquittal.
In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; any doubts benefit the accused, making acquittal appropriate where evidence is inconsistent or insufficient.
principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While the High Court can review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not int....
The appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely on the basis of a possible alternative view unless the trial court's decision demonstrates illegality or perversity. Evidence must meet the high....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.