Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
State of Uttarakhand - Appellant
Versus
Amarpal @ Fauji - Respondent
Government Appeal No. 215 of 2007
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Acquittal - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 307, 452 - The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the presumption of innocence and the cautious approach required in appeals against acquittals.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant reported an assault at an ashram, leading to charges against the accused under IPC Sections 307 and 452. The trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as key witnesses contradicted the prosecution's claims and the complainant did not support the case.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt under IPC Sections 307 and 452.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court must exercise caution in overturning acquittals, respecting the presumption of innocence and requiring substantial reasons for interference.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The State has filed this government appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2007 passed by Learned III F.T.C/Additional Sessions Judge, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 1998 (State vs. Amarpal @ Fauji), whereby, the respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 452 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC).
3. The facts of the case in brief are that on 26/3/1988 at 10:05 AM, the complainant submitted a written report to the police station Kotwali, Nagar Haridwar with the contents that today at about 5:00 AM, some unknown persons entered into the ashram named Nirvaan Hardwar Udaasin Ashram by jumping the boundary all of the aforesaid ashram and committed with beatings with Baba Bhagwat Das, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries; and had been admitted in Bengali Hospital, Kankhal. On the basis of above information, the case was registered as case crime no. 169/1988 on 26/03/1988 at police station Kotwali, District Haridwar under Sections 452 and 323 IPC.
4. The investigation officer conducted investigation of the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after inspecting the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan, inquest and on completion of investigation submitted a charge sheet under Sections 323, 307 and 452 IPC. The cognizance was taken against the accused/respondent and the case was committed to Learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial.
5. The charges were framed on 28/04/1998 against the accused/respondent under Sections 307 and 452 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried.
6. As many as six witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. They are PW-1 Acharya Jagdish Muni, PW-2 Swami Satswaroop Shastri, PW-3 Shantanand, PW-4 Dr. Ravindra Ramchandra Sonteki, PW-5 H.C.P. Karan Singh, PW-6 S.I. R.P. Chaudhary (Investigating Officer of the case) and documentary evidence was exhibited by the prosecution witnesses.
7. Thereafter, the statement of accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, the accused/respondent stated the prosecution case to be false and stated that he was innocent but did not give any evidence in defence.
8. The trial court on conclusion of trial found that the prosecution could not prove the case against the accused/respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly proceeded to acquit the accused/respondent as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this government appeal. Leave was already granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.06.2007.
9. PW-1 Acharya Jagdish Muni, who was the complainant of the case did not support the prosecution story and stated that he wrote the FIR on the basis of hearsay. He even denied giving any statement to the police and regarding his statements under 161 Cr.P.C., stated that he does not know how was it written. He was declared hostile by the prosecution.
10. PW-2 Swami Satswaroop Shastri on oath stated that on 26.03.1988 at around 5:00 AM, he returned to the ashram after taking holy bath in river Ganges. He deposed that he himself saw the accused person beating the victim. Seeing him, the accused/respondent ran away. He further deposed that he along with some other persons took the victim to the hospital.
11. PW-3 Shantanand was also declared hostile.
12. PW-4 Dr. Ravindra Ramchandra Sonteki on oath stated that he examined the victim when he was brought to the hospital in an injured state on 26.03.1988 at around 7:50 AM. He stated that there were three injury marks on the victim’s head, which could have been caused by a hard object. He further opined that the injury marks could also be caused as a result of falling.
13. PW-5 Head Constable Karan Singh on oath stated that he was the one who wrote the FIR and further identified his handwriting and signature in the FIR.
14. PW-6 Investigating Officer S.I. R.P. Chaudhary on oath stated that on receiv
The appellate court reinforced the principle that acquittals should not be overturned without substantial and compelling reasons, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that two reasonable views should not disturb the trial ....
An appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted if two views are possible on the evidence. The presumption of innocence of the accused is paramount.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of compelling evidence to overturn such judgments.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the presumption of innocence, the need for substantial and compelling reasons to disturb an acquittal, and the importance of giving proper weight to the trial court's findings....
The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution are paramount in criminal cases, particularly in appeals against acquittals.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
