The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a government appeal challenging the acquittal of six individuals in a 2008 case involving alleged rioting and assault on police personnel in Jhansi’s Babina district. Emphasizing the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence—that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt—the court upheld the trial court’s decision, underscoring that speculative or ambiguous evidence is insufficient for a conviction.
The appeal, filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, sought to overturn the acquittal order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi, in 2018, which found Bholu Qureshi and five other accused not guilty due to lack of credible evidence. The High Court bench, consisting of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I, delivered the judgment, reinforcing the necessity for clear and conclusive evidence in criminal cases.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on July 22, 2008, when a large crowd gathered in Babina’s Sarafa Bazaar area after police apprehended a man named Nikki, who was allegedly being beaten by the public. According to the prosecution, the gathering escalated into an unruly mob that obstructed a national highway and clashed with law enforcement officers. As reported in the FIR, filed by S.I. Arun Kant Singh, the mob, allegedly including Bholu Qureshi and others, verbally abused the police and engaged in physical altercations. This led to injuries among the police personnel and prompted the police to file charges against the identified accused and several unidentified individuals.
The defendants faced charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 307 (attempt to murder), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant), and other sections related to unlawful assembly and assault on public servants. Despite the prosecution’s extensive charges, the trial court acquitted all six accused, prompting the State’s appeal.
Legal Issues and Court Observations
The central question before the High Court was whether the trial court erred in assessing the evidence that led to the acquittal. The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment, stressed that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot rely on speculative or inconsistent testimonies. Key observations included:
1. Testimony Inconsistencies and Witness Credibility: The court noted significant discrepancies in witness testimonies, particularly from P.W.-1 Ram Kumar Sharma and P.W.-4 Nikki, the alleged victim. During cross-examination, Ram Kumar Sharma was unable to recall key details of the incident, such as the identification of the accused or specifics of the assault, which cast doubt on the reliability of his account.
2. Denial by Key Witness Nikki: Nikki, purportedly the victim of the mob assault, contradicted the prosecution’s narrative in his testimony. He asserted that he was neither beaten by the crowd nor could he identify any of the accused as his assailants. The court highlighted this testimony as particularly damaging to the prosecution’s case, with Justice Rajiv Gupta remarking that “the star witness has not supported the prosecution story at all.”
3. Failure to Produce Crucial Witnesses: The absence of S.I. Arun Kant Singh, the officer who initially filed the FIR, was noted as a significant gap in the prosecution’s case. The court deemed this omission as a “serious dent” in the case, particularly since Singh’s account could have provided firsthand corroboration of the incident and the alleged actions of the accused.
4. Principle of Reasonable Doubt: Drawing from established jurisprudence, the court reiterated that the burden of proof in criminal cases is stringent and that acquittals should not be overturned without substantial grounds. The judgment stated, “The prosecution case must be proved beyond reasonable doubts and not merely may be proved,” reinforcing that criminal convictions cannot be based on probable or conjectural conclusions.
Judgment and Rationale
The Allahabad High Court ultimately concluded that the trial court’s findings were well-founded and did not warrant interference. The bench noted that the inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence presented by the prosecution rendered the case “wholly unreliable and not worth credence.” Further, they emphasized that in cases of acquittal, appellate courts must exercise caution and avoid reversal unless there is “patent perversity” or a clear miscarriage of justice.
Justice Gupta observed, “The judgment and order of the trial court under judicious scrutiny is just, proper, and legal, which does not call for any interference by this Court.” He emphasized that the trial court had appropriately adhered to the legal standards by thoroughly evaluating the evidence and maintaining the presumption of innocence.
Legal Representation :
Sri Ashish Tiwari, AGA appearing for the State-appellant
Sri Satya Narayan Vashishth and Sri Man Mohan Mishra, counsel for all the accused-opposite parties No. 1 to 6
