Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
S. Vijai Singh - Respondent
Government Appeal No. - 2576 of 1985
Decided on : 11-12-2025
For the Appellant : A.G.A.
For the Respondent: Aditya Upadhyay, Ambrish Pandey, M.P. Yadav, Ram Bilas Yadav, S.K. Yadav.
An appellate court shall not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s finding is proven perverse. Suspicion cannot replace proof, and testimonies riddled with material contradictions and improvements, coupled with potential for false implication due to enmity, are insufficient to support a criminal conviction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 - Appeal against acquittal - Standard of proof in criminal trials - Requirement of evidence beyond reasonable doubt - Presumption of innocence of accused. (Paras 1, 3, 25, 26)
(B) Evidence - Witness credibility - Material contradictions and improvements in testimony - Statements under investigative process compared against judicial deposition - Reliability of eyewitnesses - When testimonies involve significant embellishments and contradictions, judicial weightage must be tempered. (Paras 12, 13, 15, 16)
(C) Motive - Enmity - Concept of double-edged weapon - Enmity may explain the crime but also provide potential for false implication - Courts must ensure conviction is based on cogent evidence rather than mere suspicion. (Paras 22, 23, 24)
(D) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court’s duty to evaluate findings of trial court - Interference warranted only in cases of perversity or illegality - Absence of perversity sustains acquittal order. (Paras 6, 28)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed by the prosecution challenging the verdict of the trial court which acquitted several individuals of charges related to rioting and murder. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was intercepted and killed in the presence of several witnesses, including family members. The trial court found the evidence of the so-called eyewitnesses unreliable, citing major contradictions and improvements from their earlier statements recorded during the investigation.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the eyewitnesses failed to withstand scrutiny during cross-examination, exhibiting material contradictions and significant improvements compared to their initial statements. Their presence at the scene was found to be highly doubtful given their inaction and proximity to the incident. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the witnesses or the commission of the crime by the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The central issues addressed were whether the trial court erred in disbelieving the prosecutorial witnesses and whether the acquittal order failed to account for the evidence provided, justifying appellate intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof. Given that the prosecution’s witnesses were found unreliable due to material contradictions, and that enmity can act as a catalyst for false implication, the court held that the trial court's assessment was sound. An order of acquittal cannot be disturbed unless it is shown to be perverse or contrary to law.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of trial history, investigation facts, and current status of appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. opposing arguments on the validity of evidence and the trial court's acquittal decision. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. assessment of witness credibility regarding material contradictions and presence at the scene. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. enmity represents a double-edged weapon; suspicion does not equate to proof. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. final confirmation of acquittal due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Government Appeal No. 2576 of 1985 under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 22.05.1985 passed by learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Session Trial No. 64 of 1984, whereby the accused-respondents, namely, Shanti Vijay Singh, Shatru Vijay Singh, Chandra Vijay Singh, Rama Singh, Hazari Bania, Ram Samujh, Ramapati Singh, Shreeram Yadav, Murlidhar Shukla and Paras Yadav have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused- respondents Ram Briksh Singh, Sesh Vijay Singh and Rajeshwari Lal have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 148 and 302 IPC.
2. As per prosecution version, facts of the case are that on 12.08.1982, which was Sri Krishna Janmastmi day, deceased Girijashankar Lal was going to Lakshmipur market on a cycle alongwith his younger daughter Km. Pushpa, who was seated in his front on the frame of the cycle. Complainant Nalin Kumar was following him and was at a distance of 10-15 paces. At about 10.30 A.M., when Sri Girijashankar Lal reached on the Kacha road near the grove of Sri Yunus Khan, accused Ram Briksh Singh and Shesh Vijai Singh armed with country-made pistol, accused Rajeshwari Lal armed with knife and rest of the accused carrying lathies emerged from the said grove and surrounded Sri Girijashankar Lal. He stopped the cycle and Km. Pushpa immediately got down from the cycle with a push. Thereafter, Ram Briksh Singh and Shesh Vijai Singh fired with their country-made pistols, consequently he sustained injuries and tumbled down. Thereafter, accused persons lifted and took him near the ditch lying to the east of the road and threw him down there. Whereafter, accused Rajeshwari Lal sawed his neck with his knife. Rest of the accused had been holding Sri Girijashankar Lal and when Sri Girijashankar Lal died, the accused persons threw his dead body in the water in the nearby ditch. When accused Rajeshwari Lal was cutting the neck of Sri Girijashankar Lal, Km. Pushpa was entreating the accused and begging for the life of her father, but accused Shanti Vijai Singh threatened and pushed her back. Pancham and Ayodhya, who were coming from the road, saw this occurrence, when the accused noticed their presence on the spot, they threatened and chased them and they fled away raising hue and cry. The accused then ran away. Nalin Kumar, Pancham and Ayodhya then came back to the spot and in the meantime some other villagers also reached there. Complainant Nalin Kumar asked them to supervise the dead body. He started for the police station on his cycle. After covering a distance of 5-6 Km., when he reached in village Mohnapur Dhala, he purchased some papers and prepared a report giving details of this occurrence, took it to Police Station Purandarpur and lodged the same there at 12.15 P.M.
3. Thereafter, on the information of complainant Nalin Kumar, a case was registered against the named accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC. Investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Ravindranath Pandey (PW-5). He started investigation of the case, inspected the place of incident, prepared the panchayatnama (inquest report) of the deceased Girijashankar Lal, sent his body for autopsy and also prepared the site plan. After completing all the formalities of the investigation, he sub
