Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Manveer @ Tanveer S/O Karan Singh @ … on 9 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109195-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 802 of 2024 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Manveer @ Tanveer S/O Karan Singh @ Gajendra Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon’ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal)
1. Heard Sri Rahul Asthana, learned AGA appearing for the appellant-State of UP and perused the record.
2. Present government appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.-1, Amroha in Special Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2020 (State Vs. Manveer @ Tanveer), arising out of Case Crimes No. 459 of 2019 under Sections, 363, 302, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act , P.S.- Didauli, District- Amroha.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant has given a written report at police station concerned stating therein that the accused-respondent on 18.10.2019 has enticed away his minor daughter and kept her in his illegal possession and has committed rape upon her and thereafter committed her murder. Her date of birth is 13.03.2002. On the basis of the aforesaid, the first information report of the present case was registered, in which the investigating officer after due investigation has submitted charge sheet.
4. In support of prosecution case, PW-1 Pappu (complainant), PW-2 Ravi Kumar, PW-3 Raj Kumar, PW-4 H.M. Sant Ram, PW-5 Dr. Adesh Kumar Singh, PW-6 Inspector Sarad Malik, PW-7 Sub-Inspector Pappu Jadon and PW-8 Ram Niwas Singh (Principal) were produced and examined before the Court below.
5. The judgement of acquittal was passed by the court below on the ground that all the three witnesses PW-1 Pappu, who is informant and father of the deceased, PW-2 Ravi Kumar, who is real brother of the deceased and PW-3 Raj Kumar, who is real maternal uncle of the deceased turned hostile and the case accused Manveer @ Tanveer could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court below also noticed the fact that initially first information report was lodged against Monu cousin (brother) of the deceased and during investigation he was exonerated and on the basis of one selfie found in the mobile of accused herein Manveer @ Tanveer, he was named, which is not sufficient and it is a case of circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the incident, therefore, the case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused. The court below also found that the post mortem report also reflects that there was ligature mark on the neck and there was gap of about 6cm on the back side of neck, which reflects that it is a case of hanging and that the victim has committed suicide. The trial court has further considered the statement of PW-5 Dr. Adesh Kumar (Radiologist) who had supported the medical report. He had further found that there was no thumb impression on the neck and there was no fracture in larynx, cartilage, vocal cord although the hyde bone was broken. The court below found that the medical evidence reflects that sexual offence has been committed in the present case, however it is not proved that the accused Manveer @ Tanveer has committed the same and it was also noticed that the dead body of the deceased was found hanging on a tree near about 50 meters from the highway and there was no public witness and accused has been implicated subsequently by the Investigating officer only on the basis of one photograph of the victim found in his mobile. Other minor contradictions have also been noticed by the trial court and on this ground judgement of acquittal was passed. Under such circumstances, the Court below found that the prosecution could not prove his case beyond doubt and the accused persons were given benefit of doubt and judgement of acquittal was passed.
6. Challenging the impugned judgment, Sri Rahul Asthana, learned AGA submits that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record. He further submits that judgment and order of acquittal is against the evidence available on record. The medical evidence clearly proved that rape was committed upon the deceased and she was under 18 years of age and the accused person has enticed her away and committed the crime, therefore, the judgement of acquittal is liable to be reversed and the accused is liable to be convicted. He further submits that the learned trial Court has given undue weightage to the evidence of defence and has wrongly ignored the prosecution evidence. He further submits that the witnesses are intact and have supported the prosecution case and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is not one of the possible view. Submission, therefore, is that the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court requires serious consideration and reversal and the accused persons herein are liable to be convicted.
7. We have considered the submissions and have perused the record.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take note of law on the appeal against acquittal.
9. 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”
10. 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.”
11. In a recent judgement 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.”
12. Similar view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471.
13. On perusal of record, we find that there is no doubt that the Doctor, who was included in the panel of postmortem has made statement to the effect that the rape was committed upon the victim before her death. However, the postmortem report reflects that there was a gap of 6cm in the ligature mark on the back side of the neck which is a typical sign of suicide/hanging. It is not in dispute that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the much celebrated case of Sharad Birdichand Sarada, (1984) 4 SCC 116, has laid down five golden principles to prove such a case, relevant paragraph nos. 153, 154, 159 and 163 whereof are quoted hereinbelow:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must orshould” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
159. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier viz. before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied:
(1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved,
(2) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and
(3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.
163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(1973) 2 SCC 808 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048 : AIR 1973 SC 2773 : (1974) 1 SCR 722 : 1974 Cri LJ 1] this Court made the following observations: [SCC para 25, p. 820: SCC (Cri) p. 1060]
“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 the 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 to be established by circumstantial evidence.”
14. As held in Sharad Birdichand Sarada (supra) chain of circumstances must be so complete so as to prove that the offence has been committed none other than by the accused alone. The suspicion, howsoever, can not form basis for convicting the accused persons. We find that in the present case out of three witnesses of facts, two witnesses closely related to victim have turned hostile. PW-2 Ravi Kumar brother of the victim/deceased and PW-3 Raj Kumar who is real maternal uncle of the deceased have turned hostile. PW-1 Pappu Singh father of the victim/deceased has not supported the prosecution version although he was not declared hostile. They have categorically stated to the effect that the victim was not having any relationship with Manveer @ Tanveer, the accused herein and they have not seen the incident and that the police got their signature on blank papers and they are not aware as to what was written on such report. We also find that in the cross examination the PW-5 Dr. Adesh Kumar has opined in his cross examination that no incriminating material was found in the nails of the victim which is almost a certain possibility in a case of rape and that no injuries was seen on the neck except that the hyde bone was found broken. We are of the opinion that generally the hyde bone is not broken in the cases of suicide, however, in exceptional cases there may be a fracture of hyde bone as well though this may happen only in exceptional cases. However, on perusal of the evidence available on record in totality, we are of the opinion that the court below has taken a 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.
15. 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) is rejected by order of date, the present government appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2025
Virendra