IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1065  OF 2003

  STATE OF U.P. ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

  CHANDRA BHUSHAN UPADHYAHA ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

The  respondent  herein  was  charge-sheeted  along  with  two other  accused  

persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of the I.P.C.  The  

Trial Court acquitted two accused persons who were co-accused with the respondent  

herein but convicted the respondent under Section 395 of the I.P.C. and sentenced  

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.   

Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the  

Trial  Court,  the respondent  filed an appeal  before  the Allahabad High Court.  By  

passing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.  

333/1986, the High Court acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 395  

IPC.  The State being aggrieved of the said order of acquittal, has filed this appeal on  

which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.      

-2-

The High Court on consideration of the materials on record, found that there  

is no evidence available on record on the basis of which there could be an order of  

conviction and sentence against the respondent.  

We have scrutinized the records and we find that the order of conviction and  

sentence is based mainly on the ground that the DBBL gun of the  respondent was  

found by the side of one of the dacoits who was apprehended and was killed. We fail  

to  understand  as  to  how  that  could  be  an  incriminating  evidence  against  the  

respondent for there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent was either  

physically present at the place of occurrence for the purpose of commission of dacoity  

nor there is any evidence to show that he was a party to the conspiracy, if any.

On appreciation of the evidence on record, we find that the High Court has  

given  sufficient  and  cogent  reasons  for  acquitting  the  respondent.  The  impugned  

order does not call for any interference. This appeal, therefore, has no merit and is  

dismissed accordingly.  

...........................J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

...........................J   (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)    NEW DELHI, MAY 21, 2009.