Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vindhyachal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 March, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 692 OF 2014
VINDHYACHAL & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The appellants have been convicted by the
High Court for the offences punishable
under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 148 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
the ‘IPC’).
2. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Trial Court on appreciation
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2025.03.10
14:39:23 IST
Reason:
of the evidence placed before it, was
1 Crl. A No.692 OF 2014
pleased to extend the benefit of doubt to
the appellants which has been reversed by
the High Court vide the impugned
judgment.
3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell
is that in the year 1977, the accused
No.1 and other accused were witnessing a
dance which was bordering on obscenity
and was objected to by the prosecution
witnesses’ side. It resulted in a fight
between the two groups. Thereafter, due
to the previous enmity, the accused
persons came to the field of the
complainant and starting attacking him
and others. The instant FIR in July, 1978
was preceded by an earlier occurrence
which also resulted in an FIR filed
against the accused persons in the month
of March, 1978.
4. In the case at hand, the statement of PW-
4 was recorded as a dying declaration
who, thereafter, survived. Thus, the said
statement does not have the evidentiary
2 Crl. A No.692 OF 2014
value of a dying declaration.
5. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the
evidence on record disbelieved the
evidence of the prosecution and rendered
an order of acquittal. Insofar as the
evidence of PW-4 is concerned, the Trial
Court was pleased to hold that the
earlier statement made by PW-4 an alleged
injured eye witness is in contradiction
to the statement of PW-3 that resulted in
the First Information Report. Material
discrepancies between the oral evidence
adduced by the eye-witnesses and that of
the medical evidence was taken note of by
the Trial Court. Even the statement given
by the complainant as PW-3, at the time
of registration of the First Information
Report and thereafter his statement
before the Trial Court being
contradictory in nature was also taken
note of.
6. Incidentally, it was also found by the
Trial Court that though the First
3 Crl. A No.692 OF 2014
Information Report is alleged to have
been recorded on 03.07.1978, the officer
concerned has signed it on the next day,
giving credence to a strong suspicion
that it must have been ante-dated.
7. The evidence of PW-4 to 6 was eschewed by
the Trial Court apart from the fact that
they were interested witnesses, as there
were material contradictions between
their prior statements and the subsequent
statements made by them before the Trial
Court.
8. Thus, by taking note of the aforesaid
facts, the Trial Court was pleased to
extend the benefit of doubt to the
accused persons by holding that the
prosecution has not proved the charges
levelled against them beyond reasonable
doubt and acquitted them.
9. The High Court, vide the impugned
judgment, was pleased to reverse the
judgment of the Trial Court by holding
that the discrepancies, though in
4 Crl. A No.692 OF 2014
existence, were minor in nature and would
not vitiate the case of the prosecution.
10. We find considerable force in the
submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants that when
the Trial Court which had the benefit of
seeing the witnesses produced before it
was pleased to render an order of
acquittal, then the Appellate Court while
exercising its power under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as
it then was, should be slow in reversing
the order of acquittal. In other words, a
Court of Appeal shall not substitute the
view of the Trial Court, especially when
the views expressed by the Trial Court is
a plausible one. It is a case of double
presumption of innocence that would enure
to the benefit of an acquitted person.
11. After going through the judgment of the
Trial Court, we certainly find that it is
a plausible view that has been expressed
by it. The High Court has replaced that
5 Crl. A No.692 OF 2014
view with its own reasoning, which is not
permissible in the eye of law.
12. We also take note of the fact that it is
a case involving Section 34 and 148 of
the IPC and, therefore, there is always a
possibility of the Prosecution adding
more accused.
13. Thus, considering the aforesaid
discussion, we set aside the impugned
judgment, by restoring the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the Trial Court.
14. The appellants shall be released
forthwith, unless required in any other
case.
15. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
……………………………………………………J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
NEW DELHI;
6th MARCH, 2025
6 Crl. A No.692 OF 2014
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 692/2014
VINDHYACHAL & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 06-03-2025 This appeal was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR
Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made
the following
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the
signed order.
The relevant portion of the order reads
as under:-
‘The appellants shall be
released forthwith, unless
required in any other case.’Pending application(s), if any, shall
7 Crl. A No.692 OF 2014
stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)8 Crl. A No.692 OF 2014