Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3984
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, AJAY KUMAR-II, JJ.
Smt. Indrawati Devi – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. And others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal U/S 413 BNSS No. 666 of 2025
Decided On : 24-11-2025
For the Appellants : Mahesh Prasad Yadav
For the Respondents: G.A.
An appellate court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or unsustainable. The presumption of innocence is reinforced upon acquittal, and reversal is justified only for compelling and substantial reasons.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Appeal against acquittal - Principles of interference - Appellate court must refrain from reversing an acquittal unless the lower court’s approach is patently illegal, perverse, or based on a misreading of material evidence - An order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. (Paras 18-22, 37)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused through direct evidence - Witnesses turned hostile or lacked credibility - Absence of forensic reports for recovered weapons and bullets created serious doubt in the prosecution case - Non-conduct of identification procedures further weakened the case. (Paras 16, 34-36)
(C) Judicial Administration - Duty of investigating agencies and courts - Presiding judges must act as active impartial umpires - Designedly defective investigation leading to acquittal warrants specific findings, directions for disciplinary action against officials, and periodic review by state committees. (Paras 41-59)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the informant against the acquittal of the accused in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the victim was shot dead by unknown assailants, later identifying specific individuals through police investigation. However, the trial court acquitted all accused, citing the lack of credible eyewitnesses and the absence of scientific evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The forensic lapses and the lack of reliable identification of the accused rendered the investigation suspicious, failing to establish the guilt of the accused. The appellate court found no manifest perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment.
Issues: Whether the acquittal was based on perverse findings of fact and whether the investigative lapses constituted a deliberate dereliction of duty by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court maintains a limited scope of interference in cases of acquittal, which should be exercised only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice when the trial court's order is based on a total misappreciation of evidence or is demonstrably unsustainable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and summary of trial court acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. the appellate arguments from the prosecution and state regarding the judgment. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 3. analysis of evidentiary deficiencies and absence of eyewitness testimony. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 4. scope of appellate interference and presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 5. criticism of investigative agency's role and dereliction of statutory duties. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 6. mandatory judicial directives for disciplinary action and police investigation reforms. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.P. Yadav, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State respondent-1.
2. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act), Prayagraj in Sessions Trial No. 222 of 2016 (State Vs. Pankaj Mishra and others) acquitting the accused opposite parties 2 to 5 of the charges under Sections 302/149, 120-B/149 IPC and in Sessions Trial No.541 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.253 of 2015, acquitting the accused opposite parties 6 & 7 of the charges under Sections 302/149 and 120-B/149 IPC and in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Pankaj Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 13 of 2016, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, P.S. Utraon, District Prayagraj acquitting the accused opposite party-2 of the charge under aforementioned sections of the Arms Act.
3. Brief facts of the case as per prosecution story is that the informant/appellant Smt. Indravati Devi (wife of the deceased) had given a written report on 22.11.2015 at 21:52 hours, alleging therein that today i.e. on 22.11.2015 at about 07:30 PM, her husband Sarju Prasad Patel was standing in front of her house beneath a Neem tree and was rubbing tobaco (khaini) in his hand, meanwhile three persons came from the north side on a motorcycle and parked their motorcycle, bought cigarettes from Rakesh Kumar (Bhagat)'s shop and smoked. Thereafter all the three accused persons started the motorcycle, but the motorcycle remained stationed and then pillion rider shot a fire on her husband twice in the chest, and after some time the accused shot at him again in the back (near waist) and ran away by the motorcycle. The husband of informant died on the spot. The informant stated that she and her maternal uncles-in-law, Randhir Singh and Mahendra Singh Patel and several other neighbours witnessed this entire incident and said that they don't know the names of the accused, but they can identify them by sight. The husband of informant was murdered out of a rivalry because he had taken a liquor contract.
4. On the basis of aforementioned written report of informant, an FIR was registered on 22.11.2015 at 21:52 hours, bearing Case Crime No.253 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Utraon, District Prayagraj against three unknown accused persons.
5. During course of investigation of Case Crime No.253 of 2015, accused Pankaj Mishra was arrested a .32 bore pistol alongwith magazine was recovered from the left pocket of his trouser. On opening a magazine with four live cartridges of .32 bore were also recovered. Accused Pankaj Mishra was driving a Super Splendor Motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP62AR8385 with accused Akhilesh Mishra as pillion rider. On the basis of recovery of .32 bore pistol and four live cartridges of .32 bore an FIR bearing Case Crime No.13 of 2016 under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, P.S. Utraon, District Prayagraj was registered against accused Pankaj Mishra.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-3) in Case Crime No.213 of 20215 was submitted against accused persons i.e. opposite parties 2 to 5, namely Pankaj Mishra (Ha
