GEETA DEVI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 18-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 428
428
GEETA DEVI
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2022)
JANUARY 18, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378 – Appellate Power
of High Court in case of acquittal – In the instant case, trial court
convicted respondents for the offences punishable under ss.452,
323/34 and 325/34 of the IPC, however, acquitted them for the
offences punishable under ss.354, 504, 506 of the IPC, ss.3(1)(x)
and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – High Court dismissed victim’s
appeal without elaborate reappreciation of the entire evidence on
record – On appeal, held: High Court only made general
observations on the deposition of the witness examined and did not
re-appreciate the entire evidence – Against an order of acquittal
passed by trial court, the High Court, being a first appellate Court,
ought to have re-appreciated the evidence independently, and come
to its own conclusion – High Court’s order is quashed – Matter
remitted to High Court to decide the appeal afresh.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High court,
the Court
HELD: This is not the manner in which the High Court
should have dealt with the appeal against an order of acquittal
which as such is a first appeal against the order of acquittal. The
High Court has only made general observations on the deposition
of the witness examined. However, there is no re-appreciation of
the entire evidence in detail which exercise ought to have been
made by the High Court while dealing with the judgment and
order of acquittal. Being the first appellate court, the High Court
was required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and
also the reasoning given by the Trial Court. [Para 6][430-G-H;
431-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. The State of Gujarat (1978) 1
SCC 228 : [1978] 2 SCR 471; Guru Dutt Pathak v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 116 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1978] 2 SCR 471 
relied on
Para 6
(2021) 6 SCC 116
relied on
Para 6.1
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
78 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2019 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
2356 of 2019.
T.V. George, Adv. for the Appellant.
Adarsh Upadhyay, Amit Singh, Amol Chitravanshi, Md. Shahid
Anwar, Aryan P. Nanda, Mushtaq Khan, Intakhab Alam, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2019 by
which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the
victim of the offence, which was filed against the judgment and order
dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Special Court, acquitting the
respondent accused under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section
3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the victim – original appellant has
preferred the present appeal.
2. That the learned Special Court/Trial Court convicted respondent
Nos.2 to 4 – accused for the offences punishable under Sections 452,
323/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, acquitted them
for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC,
Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Special
GEETA DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Court acquitting the respondents – accused for the aforesaid offences,
the victim preferred an appeal before the High Court by way of Criminal
Appeal No.2356 of 2019 and by the impugned one page/paragraph
judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal, which
is the subject matter of the present appeal before this Court.
3. We have heard Shri T.V. George, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant, Shri Adarsh Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State – Respondent No.1 and Shri Shahid Anwar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 – accused.
4. Number of submissions have been made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.