HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 312 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. of 2025 1. Heard Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned AGA for the State-appellant; Sri Arun Kumar Patel, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and perused the material on record. 2. The above noted leave to appeal application has been filed praying for grant of leave to the appellant to prefer appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 31.7.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.5, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Sessions Trail No. 122 of 2020 (State Vs. Rohit Bhati) in favour of respondents. 3. By the aforesaid judgement and order, the accused-respondents have been acquitted from the charges Under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC, and accused-respondent no.1, namely, Rohit Bhati, has also been acquitted from the charges under Section 25/27 Arms Act, vide its judgement and order dated 31.7.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.122 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Rohit Bhati and another) connected with Session Trial No. 123 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Rohit Bhati), arising out of Case Crime No.876 of 2019, Under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of IPC and Case Crime No. 884 of 2019, Under Section 25/27 Arms Act registered at Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27.11.2019 complainant of the case, Veeru, gave a written report at Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Sand Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anupam Dubey State of U.P. .....Appellant(s) Rohit Bhati And Another .....Respondent(s) Buddh Nagar stating therein that Chaman and Rohit have taken Rs.5 lacs on loan for the period of one month from the son of complainant, namely, Sandeep Nagar, who was demanding his money from them. On 26.11.2019 at about 9:30 P.M. Rohit along with his friend, Rinku Bhadana, whose maternal uncle is in Chooharpur, came at his house Atta Gujran and took his son, namely, Sandeep, by vehicle to his father Chaman for returning the money. Thereafter Sandeep did not returned. In the night, he made calls several time, but his phone could not connect. On 27.11.2019 at 10:00 A.M. he received information through passersby that his son, Sandeep, is lying dead near Jaganpur dam. After receiving information, complainant and others reached on spot, where Sandeep was found lying dead. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the first information report was lodged, and after lodging of the first information report, the Investigating Officer started investigation and after making detailed investigation, completing all formalities and collecting credible evidences submitted charge sheet against the accused persons in the court to face trial. 5. Trial court framed charges against the respondents which they denied and sought trial. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1, complainant of the case, Veeru; PW-2 Kanta; PW-3 Sheetal; PW-4 Sumit; PW-5 Sachin Nagar; PW-6, Sub-Inspector, Mohan Lal; PW-7, Head Constable Vikas Panwar; PW-8, Dr. Amit Bhatiya; PW-9, Inspector, Akhilesh Pradhan; PW-10, Sub-Inspector, Rahul Nagar; PW-11, Constable, Krishna Kant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has acquitted the accused- respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused- respondent are entitled for acquittal. 7A. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the trial court has committed parent error in acquitting the accused-respondents of all charges. 8. The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment acquitting an accused on the principle that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by such a judgment. The above principle has been consistently followed by the Constitutional Court while deciding GOVA No. 312 of 2025 2 appeals against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution or appeals filed under Section 378 and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. in State of M.P. Vs. Sharad Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by re-appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below: "Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not." 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour GOVA No. 312 of 2025 3 of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity. 11. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under: "25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence." 13. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 14. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. GOVA No. 312 of 2025 4 15. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we will examine the trial court's findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. We find that PW-1, father of the deceased, in his cross- examination, has denied the motive of the crime set up regarding loan of money. He has denied that murder of his son was committed by the respondents. PW-2, mother of the deceased, also exonerated the respondents of all charges of murder levelled against them before the court. She stated that his niece is married to respondent no.1, Rohit Bhati. Her husband and deceased son never gave Rs. 5 lacs to the respondents nor any incident took place between her deceased son, Sandeep and the respondents. PW-3, wife the deceased, also denied in her cross-examination that her husband was taken by the respondents to some feast on 25.11.2019. She also stated that no dispute took place between her deceased husband and the respondents. She also denied the motive of loan of Rs.5 lacs advanced to the respondents by her husband and father-in-law, PW-1. She further stated that on the fateful night deceased left his house alone. Similar was the statement of PW-4, brother of the deceased, recorded by the trial court, denying the motive of the crime and the involvement of the respondents therein. PW-5 admitted that police took the CCTV footage from his house, but he stated that the same was not sealed before him nor his signature was taken on recovery memo. Regarding the implication of the respondent no.1 in case under Arms Act also the recovery of the arms was not proved by PW-6 and PW-10. The recovery of pistol was although claimed by the witnesses, but no gun shot injury was found on the person of the deceased. Trial court has found contradictions in the statements of PW-6, PW-9 and PW-10 regarding the recovery of arms from the respondents and acquitted them of all the charges under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act. 17. After considering the evidence on record, this Court does not finds any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court's judgement is a well merited one, this Court need not re-appreciate the evidence. 18. This leave to appeal application is rejected. Order on Government Appeal GOVA No. 312 of 2025 5 Since leave to appeal application is rejected, therefore, the above noted government appeal is, hereby, dismissed. Let the record of the trial court be returned and this judgement to be notified to the trial court, within two week. September 4, 2025 Ruchi Agrahari GOVA No. 312 of 2025 6 (Santosh Rai,J.) (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad