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 Srivastava, delivering separate opinion, concluded that the acquittal of five accused, including Abhay Singh, was unwarranted, given the strong testimony of the injured complainant, corroborated by medical and technical evidence. Justice Masoodi, however, opined that the trial court had adequately addressed the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and upheld the acquittal of certain accused.
Judicial Observations
Justice Masoodi 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.
Justice Srivastava underscored the legal principle that the testimony of an injured witness carries substantial weight, as their presence at the crime scene is indisputable. The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi, which emphasized the evidentiary value of such testimonies unless contradicted by overwhelming evidence.
Quoting the judgment, Justice Srivastava remarked: “The testimony of an injured witness is an inbuilt guarantee of their presence at the scene and carries a higher degree of reliability.”
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.
