In a significant legal development, the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench delivered a split verdict on an appeal challenging the acquittal of former MLA Abhay Singh and others in a 2010 attempt-to-murder case. The judgment highlights the complexities surrounding evidentiary assessments and the judicial balance required in criminal trials.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR lodged by complainant Vikas Singh on May 15, 2010, alleging an attack by a group led by Abhay Singh. According to the complaint, while Singh and his associates were returning to their village in a Scorpio car, a black Safari vehicle intercepted them. The occupants, including Abhay Singh, allegedly fired gunshots at Singh’s vehicle with an intent to kill. The incident took place near Mai Ji Temple in Faizabad (now Ayodhya) district, leaving Singh with injuries from the car’s sudden stop and a narrow escape from the alleged attack.
A trial in the Special MP/MLA Court, Ambedkar Nagar, culminated in the acquittal of all accused on May 10, 2023, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence. Dissatisfied, Vikas Singh filed a criminal appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC, challenging the acquittal.
Legal Issues and Split Verdict
The High Court Bench, comprising Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, reviewed the appeal. Justice Masoodi dissented from the draft judgment, highlighting divergence in judicial opinions on the trial court’s findings.
Justice Masoodi observed that the trial court while recording the findings of acquittal has observed that some facts which have been deposed in the statement before the Court were not narrated in the FIR but overlooked the well-settled proposition that non-explanation of all the facts in the First Information Report is not an important circumstance to suggest that the prosecution has not presented the true version and suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence. But where the injuries received by the accused are minor and superficial or where the prosecution evidence is consistent and creditworthy, non-explanation of entire facts by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. Invariably, the Court has noticed that the lapses on the part of prosecution to produce witnesses for want of the adequate witness protection, the trial becomes vulnerable and vital aspects of the matter suffer on that account one way or the way.
He further observed that the view taken by the trial Court is the only view or possible view is a guiding principle applicable to unhindered and impeccably approached trial unlike the case at hand. Taking the holistic view of the matter together with detailed reasoning indicated here-in-above, the Court is of the view that findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court are erroneous, perverse and are not based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.
Consequently, Justice Masoodi allowed the appeal and the impugned judgment and order dated 10..05.2023 passed by the Special Judge (MP/MLA Court), Ambedkar Nagar was set aside.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Srivastava found that the view taken by the learned trial court, while recording acquittal of accused/ respondents No.2 to 8 of all charges levelled against them, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the same is not perverse. It is not only a possible view of the matter, which could reasonably be formed on the basis of the evidence available on record before the learned trial court, but the same appears to be the only conclusion which could be formed on the basis of evidence available on record. There is nothing on record indicating that any inadmissible evidence was relied upon by the learned trial court or that, while recording the finding of acquittal of the accused/ respondents No. 2 to 8, the trial court failed to consider any evidence that was otherwise admissible, but the same was not considered. It can also not be said that the mention of various cases against the first informant, P.W.-2/ Vikas Singh, was the sole reason for recording the finding of acquittal of respondents No.2 to 8 in this case by the learned trial court. Therefore, no interference with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.2023 is warranted having regard to the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.
However, Justice Srivastava concurred with the finding recorded by Justice Masoodi insofar as the same relates to acquittal of respondents No.5 and 6, namely, Girish Pandey @ Dippul Pandey and Vijay Kumar Gupta, for the separate reasoning.
Matter Referred
In view of the difference of opinion between the members of the Bench, the record of the Criminal Appeal will be placed before the Chief
Justice under Section 433 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 392 Code of Criminal Procedure) for nomination of Bench.
Counsels and Parties
The appellant, Vikas Singh, was represented by advocates Sandeep Yadav and Naved Ali, while a team of defense lawyers, including Anuj Pandey, Ashish Kumar Singh, and Nagendra Mohan, represented the respondents. The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by the Government Advocate.
