Prosecution's Case 'Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubts' & Not Merely 'May Be Proved': Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 6 In 'Riots' Case

While upholding the acquittal of 6 men accused of rioting and assaulting police personnel in Jhansi's Babina district in 2008, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that it is a well-established principle that the prosecution's case 'must be proved beyond reasonable doubts' and not merely 'may be proved'. A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I also observed that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. The Court added that if it is inclined to reverse the trial court's judgment of acquittal, the appellate court must record pertinent findings on the above factors. With these observations, the Division Bench dismissed a Government's appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by Addl Sessions Judge Jhansi in August 2018, acquitting six accused booked for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 353, 324, 504, 506, 342, 336 IPC. The case in brief As per the prosecution's case, an FIR was lodged by SI Arun Kant Singh concerning an incident that took place on the evening of July 22, 2008, at around 9:30 PM, wherein a mob had apprehended and beaten one Nikki. The police were informed about the same, and when the cops intervened to stop the assault, the crowd became hostile and abusive. Though the cops managed to rescue the victim and bring him to the police station, a larger group of accused, including the accused before the Court, along with 40-50 unidentified people, blocked the national highway, caused traffic disruptions and created chaos and a violent confrontation also took place, with the police being assaulted with sticks and firearms. The additional police forces were called, and the crowd scattered, but not before engaging in stone pelting, injuring several police officers and others. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the factum as to how the injuries were caused to the victim and who, in fact, caused the said injuries. Even the genesis of the prosecution, as stated in the FIR, could not be proved, and the star witness, Nikki (who was allegedly beaten up by the crow), did not support the prosecution story at all. In view of the dent created in the prosecution story, making it wholly unreliable and not worth credence, the trial court, after analysing the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of the accused-opposite parties. Challenging the trial court's judgment, the State Government filed the instant appeal contending that the trial court had not appreciated the evidence and material on record from the right perspective and had illegally recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of the accused-opposite parties. It was also argued that the injury report submitted by the police personnel is on record and has been proved by the doctor. However, the trial court ignored the consistency and reliability of prosecution evidence and, on flimsy grounds in an arbitrary manner, acquitted the accused opposite parties. On the other hand, Advocates Satya Narayan Vashishth and Man Mohan Mishra, appearing for the accused, defended the judgment of acquittal by contending that the reliability of prosecution witnesses was shattered during their cross-examination and the trial court committed no error while appreciating the evidence rendered by the prosecution as well as the defence.High Court's observations Finding substance in the trial court's order and judgment, the High Court also pointed to a primary loophole in the prosecution's case, which was the non-examination of SI Arun Kant Singh (P.W.-1), who was the first informant of the case and alleged to have been present at the time of the incident. The Court also noted that his cross-examination contained severe contradictions and inconsistencies even in his statement, rendering the prosecution story wholly unreliable. Thus, the Court found that the trial Court, after analyzing and scrutinizing the evidence on record, recorded the acquittal of the accused persons, made logical and plausible findings in the judgement, and rightly concluded that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. “…the trial court had given cogent and convincing reasons for recording the finding of acquittal against the accused respondents and that the acquittal of the accused respondents is plausible and justifiable view emanating from the...

Prosecution's Case 'Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubts' & Not Merely 'May Be Proved': Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 6 In 'Riots' Case

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Prosecution's Case 'Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubts' & Not Merely 'May Be Proved': Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 6 In 'Riots' Case

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers