Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home … vs Amit Mishra on 4 August, 2026
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:54103-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/s 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 91 of 2026 State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. ..Applicant(s) Versus Amit Mishra ..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : G.A., Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON’BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
RE: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2026
1. Heard Ms Meera Tripathi, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.
2. There is delay of 157 days in filing the appeal.
3. Cause shown in affidavit is sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed.
4. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal.
Re: Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal)
1. Heard Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned AGA appearing for the appellant-State of UP and perused the record.
2. The present government appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court Second, Ayodhya in Sessions Trial No. 18/23, arising out of Case Crime No. 231/22, under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC) Police Station Khandasa, District Faizabad/Ayodhya. By the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2026 passed in Sessions Trial No. 18/23, the accused Amit Mishra was acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal along with application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the said judgment.
4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainants son Amit Kumar who was a drug addict on 14.09.2022 in the night inflicted blows to her mother Shreemati and due to excessive bleeding she succumbed.
5. On the basis of written information given by the informant First Information Report (herein after referred to as FIR) has been lodged against the accused Amit Kumar under Section 304 of the IPC.
6. During the course of investigation, statement of the informant and other witnesses were recorded, site plan prepared and after concluding the investigation, Investigating Officer (herein after referred to as IO) filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence.
7. After compliance of mandatory provision of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as CrPC), the said case was committed to the Court of Session from where it is made over to the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Second Ayodhya for disposal according to law.
8. Learned trial court framed the charges against the accused under Section 304 of the IPC and read over and explained to him, which he denied and claimed to be tried.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced the ocular evidence of Dudhnath Mishra PW1, Ranjeet Mishra PW2, Virendra Kumar PW3, Dr. Jitendra Kumar PW4, SI Sri Prakash Singh PW5, SI Ashwani Kumar PW6 and also proved the documentary evidence.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, learned trial court found that the charge against the accused Amit not duly proved. Consequently, the Court acquitted the accused Amit for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC.
11. The judgment of the acquittal was passed on the ground that the prosecution version is not correct since the informant was not an eye witness. He had lodged the FIR on the information given by others. Learned trial court also observed that no one had seen the occurrence through their naked eyes. On the subsequent day of the alleged incident, dead body of the deceased was seen and on the suspicion, name of the accused Amit was implicated. PW1 Dudhnath Mishra turned hostile. He had stated that he did not know who had killed his deceased wife. Learned trial court also observed that PW2 Ranjeet Mishra has given testimony to the effect that accused was drug addict and he used to sell his domestic articles and also had caused injury to his father earlier. Learned trial court also observed that Virendra Kumar PW3, who is the son-in-law had admitted that information in respect of the death of the deceased was given by some neighbors. Thus, from analysis of the witnesses of fact, the presence of the accused at the time of alleged incident does not substantiate. Learned trial court also observed that alleged recovery of the dandawhich was made on the instance of the accused is also not substantiated by any independent witness.
12. Learned trial Court also indicated that there is no FSL report which may substantiate the alleged weapon used in the commission of crime since there is an absence of blood stain report. Learned trial court also indicated that the I.O. had stated that sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the accused had told during the investigation that accused was present in the house with his deceased mother on the date of alleged incident, but despite of giving opportunity to procure the presence of the witness Seema Mishra, prosecution did not produce her before the court. Learned trial Court further found that there was material contradiction and shifting of stand in the statement of victim, her statement was not worth belief. Under such circumstances, the trial Court found that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused person was given benefit of doubt and judgment of acquittal was passed.
13. Challenging this impugned judgment, learned AGA submits that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record. She further submits that learned trial court committed error in observing that in absence of the eyewitness account, case of the prosecution is not proved. Learned AGA further submits that prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence and the chain of the circumstantial evidence is completed; previous antecedent of the accused for inflicting injury to her father is proved and accused was drug addict who used to sell his domestic articles for purchase of the drugs. She further submitted that the I.O. and other independent witness have corroborated the prosecution case and findings recorded by the trial court are not one of the possible view. Submission, therefore, is that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court requires serious consideration and reversal and the accused person herein is liable to be convicted.
14. We have considered the submissions and have perused the record.
15. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take note of law on the appeal against acquittal.
16. In the case of Bannareddy and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 5 SCC 790, in paragraph 10, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal and in paragraph 26 it has been held that “the High Court should not have reappreciated the evidence in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial Court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities”
17. In Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka, 2021 (6) SCC 213, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to explain the limitations of exercise of power of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal against against an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court in the following words:
“The power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court under Section 378, CrPC should not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial court was a ”possible view’. The judgment of the trial court cannot be set aside merely because the High Court finds its own view more probable, save where the judgment of the trial court suffers from perversity or the conclusions drawn by it were impossible if there was a correct reading and analysis of the evidence on record. To say it differently, unless the High Court finds that there is complete misreading of the material evidence which has led to miscarriage of justice, the view taken by the trial court which can also possibly be a correct view, need not be interfered with. This self-restraint doctrine, of course, does not denude the High Court of its powers to re-appreciate the evidence, including in an appeal against acquittal and arrive at a different firm finding of fact.”
18. In a judgment of this Court in Virendra Singh vs. State of UP and others, 2022 (3) ADJ 354 DB, the law on the issue involved has been considered. For ready reference, paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 are quoted as under:
“10. In the case of Babu vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Paragraphs 12 to 19 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:-
“12. This court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be more, the probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 2165; Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 315; Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 2003 SC 1104; Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699; Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2500; State of U.P. v. Ramveer Singh AIR 2007 SC 3075; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs. & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206; Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445).
13. In Sheo Swarup and Ors. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227, the Privy Council observed as under:
“…the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.”
14. The aforesaid principle of law has consistently been followed by this Court. (See: Tulsiram Kanu v. The State AIR 1954 SC 1; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216; M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200; Khedu Mohton & Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 66; Sambasivan and Ors. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412; Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85; and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755).
15. In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, this Court reiterated the legal position as under:
“(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
16. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450, this Court re-iterated the said view, observing that the appellate court in dealing with the cases in which the trial courts have acquitted the accused, should bear in mind that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. The appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court as the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
17. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368, the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that an “order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused.”
18. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias Baijnath & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 271, this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstances includes:
i) The High Court’s decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position;
ii) The High Court’s conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record;
iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice;
iv) The High Court’s judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case;
v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court;
vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal.
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dhanapal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras (2009) 10 SCC 401.
19. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.”
11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 972 has observed that while deciding appeal against acquittal, the High Court has to first record its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusion arrived by it is wholly untenable which alone will justify interference in an order of acquittal.
12. The aforesaid judgments were taken note of with approval by Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166, Nagabhushan vs. State of Karnataka (2021) 5 SCC 222, and Babu (supra) in Achhar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 543.”
19. Similar view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471.
20. On perusal of record we find that the learned trial Court has thoroughly analyzed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found that the informant, who is the father of the accused and husband of the deceased was not present in the house at the time of incident and when he returned, then the facts regarding death of the deceased was intimated to him by his cousin and on that basis he had lodged FIR. On the statement of PW1 Doodhnath Mishra, we found that he had resiled from his earlier version given to the I.O. and he had specifically stated that he is unaware that who had assaulted his deceased wife. From the testimony of the PW2 Ranjeet Mishra, no substantial material has been emerged out. He has given only statement to the effect of antecedent of the accused. PW3 Virendra Kumar, who is the son-in-law of the deceased, has stated that he has got information by the neighbors that deceased has died, thus no substantive material emerged out from their evidence. In so far as recovery of alleged weapon danda is concerned, it is stated that on the pointing out of accused danda was recovered, but no independent witness was procured for the alleged recovery. As this case rests on circumstantial evidence, yet the chain of the circumstantial evidence is not connected, as it is broken. On close scrutiny, we also find that the witnesses are not of sterling quality. In such view of the matter, we, therefore, find that the trial Court has taken possible view of the matter on appreciation of entire evidence on record, which cannot be substituted by this Court taking a different view as per the law discussed above.
21. Accordingly, it is not a case worth granting leave to appeal. The application for granting leave to appeal is rejected.
Re: Government Appeal
1. Consequently, since the Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) has been rejected by order of date, the present government appeal is also dismissed.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)
August 04, 2026
Arvind
