Court No. - 43

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 781 of 2022

Appellant :- State of U.P.

Respondent :- Premchand S/O Meghraj And 03 Othres

Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

This appeal is by the State alongwith prayer for grant of leave

to assail the judgment of acquittal, dated 12.9.2022, passed by

Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge,

M.P./M.L.A. Court, Hapur, in Special Sessions Trial No.85 of

2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Premchand and others), arising out of

Case Crime No.364 of 2015; Sessions Trial No.86 of 2016

(State of U.P. Vs. Premchand), arising out of Case Crime

No.371 of 2015; Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2016 (State of U.P.

Vs. Kapil Rana), arising out of Case Crime No.372 of 2015;

and Sessions Trial No.88 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Harendra),

arising out of Case Crime No.373 of 2015, under Sections 302,

201, 120-B IPC & Section 25 and 25/4 of the Arms Act, Police

Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the informant gave a

report stating that his nephew (deceased), aged about 37 years

had gone to the agricultural fields to switch on the tubewell and

when the informant arrived at to his field, after sometime, he

found that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the fields

of one Parmal son of Girdhari Lal. Gunshot injuries were found

on the deceased. A first information report was lodged and

during investigation name of Premchand, Smt. Urmila, Kapil

Rana and Harendra surfaced. A chargesheet ultimately was filed

under Section 302, 201, 120-B IPC. A firearm has also been

recovered from the accused Premchand and Kapil Rana and

chargesheets were filed under Section 25 and 25/4 of the Arms

Act also.

During the course of trial the prosecution has adduced several

witnesses including the informant and the wife of the deceased

Smt. Pankaj (PW-4).

The case set up against the accused was that certain amount had

been loaned by the deceased to the accused persons and as per

PW-4 about two days prior to incident a demand for return of

amount was made and threats were extended by the accused to

the deceased then.

This is a case based on circumstantial evidence as none

admittedly has seen the occurrence. Motive in such cases

acquires significance. Although it is alleged that Rs.10 lacs

were given by the deceased as loan but no material in the form

of evidence has been placed on record to prove any financial

transaction between them. A mobile phone has also been

recovered from the spot and it has been alleged that the

deceased spoke to the accused but the evidence in that regard

has not been accepted for the reason that as per CDR report the

location of the accused was not at the place of occurrence.

Upon cumulative assessment of evidence led by the prosecution

the court below has come to the conclusion that prosecution has

failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

It has further been held that chain of events have not been

connected by the prosecution, so as to point to the hypothesis of

guilt against the accused.

Though various arguments are advanced but learned State

Counsel has not been able to show any perversity in the view

taken by the court below. Law is otherwise settled that in a case

of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under an

obligation to demonstrate that the chain of evidence points only

to the hypothesis of guilt on part of the accused and that no

other hypothesis is available on facts. In the facts of the case the

opinion expressed by the court below that such hypothesis

pointing exclusively to the complicity of the accused is not

proved is based upon appreciation of evidence led on record,

wherein no perversity is shown, therefore, we decline the prayer

made for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal.

It is otherwise the law that if a permissible view is taken by the

trial court to a