The Court reinforces the presumption of innocence, citing lack of evidence and inconsistencies in testimonies.
In a significant judgment delivered on July 7, 2026, the Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of Babloo @ Ashok Singh and Maksoodan in a high-profile case involving charges of rape and assault under sections 376, 323, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The decision was made by a Division Bench comprising Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, following an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the trial court's acquittal order.
The appeal stemmed from a case wherein Babloo @ Ashok Singh was accused of entering the victim's home, molesting her, and committing rape, while Maksoodan was accused of assaulting the victim's husband and father-in-law. The trial court had convicted both for the lesser charge of assault under section 323 IPC but acquitted them of the more serious charges of rape and house trespass.
The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the trial court's acquittal was justified due to several critical factors. Key among these were material inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and the absence of injuries typically expected in such cases. Medical evidence presented by Dr. Karuna Gupta, which showed no injuries on the victim, further weakened the prosecution's case.
The judgment emphasized the High Court's reluctance to overturn acquittals unless findings are perverse or contrary to evidence, reinforcing the presumption of innocence that accompanies acquittals. The court noted that all family members were present at the time of the alleged incident, making the occurrence of rape implausible, as testified by the defense witnesses who cited village rivalry as the motive for false allegations.
The State's appeal argued for a reconsideration of the victim's complete testimony, claiming that the trial court erred in selectively accepting parts of it. However, the High Court maintained that the trial court's view was reasonable and based on a thorough examination of the evidence, which could not be substituted merely because another view was possible.
The judgment aligns with precedents from the Supreme Court on the matter, underscoring the principle that interference in acquittals should be avoided unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice or the trial court's conclusions are unsustainable. It cited various cases, including Bannareddy v. State of Karnataka and Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, which stress the importance of respecting trial courts' findings in acquittals due to their firsthand assessment of witness credibility.
The decision not to grant leave for appeal and dismiss the government's appeal signifies the High Court's affirmation of the trial court's findings and its commitment to uphold the principles of justice and fairness. This judgment serves as a reminder of the cautious approach required in criminal appeals, particularly in cases involving serious allegations, where the integrity of the judicial process must be preserved.
Bottom line:-
Appeal against acquittal - High Court should not interfere with the trial court's acquittal order unless the findings are perverse, illegal, or untenable - Presumption of innocence is bolstered by acquittal, and interference should only occur in compelling circumstances.
Statutory provision(s): Section 378 of CrPC, Sections 376, 323, 452 of IPC, Section 207 of CrPC, Section 164 of CrPC, Indian Evidence Act 1872.
State of U.P. v. Babloo @ Ashok Singh, (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2938020
