SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 2185

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anshul Tiwari, R.B. Gaur
For the Respondent: J.P.Singh, Kuldeep Jauhari

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 - Acquittal of respondents in a criminal trial - The trial court acquitted the respondents due to lack of credible evidence, with four prosecution witnesses turning hostile and only one witness supporting the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal. (Paras 2, 20, 21, 24)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - The court reiterated the importance of the trial court's findings and the appellate court's reluctance to disturb such findings unless they are palpably wrong or based on an erroneous view of law. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a trial court's acquittal of respondents charged with murder and related offenses following a shooting incident during a festival. The prosecution's case was weakened by hostile witnesses and lack of evidence linking the respondents to the crime. (Paras 2, 3, 21)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found insufficient evidence to establish the respondents' guilt, noting that the prosecution's motive was not proven and the incident's timing was inconsistent with the allegations. (Paras 21, 24)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and whether the trial court's findings were perverse or legally infirm. (Paras 20, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, as well as the trial court's advantage in assessing witness credibility. (Paras 20, 24)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top