Back
1996(3) Supreme 103
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of U.P. -Appellant
versus
Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1986
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3256 of 1985)
Decided on 26-3-1996
Held : The High Court having acquitted the accused persons on appreciation of the evidence, we have ourselves scrutinised the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3. The conclusion is irresistible that their evidence on material particulars have been brushed aside by the High Court by entering in the realm of conjecture and fanciful speculation without even discussing the evidence more particularly the evidence relating to the basic prosecution case. While assessing and evaluating the evidence of eye witnesses the court must adhere to two principles, namely whether in the circumstances of the case it was possible for the eye witness to be present at the scene and whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable. The High Court in our opinion has failed to observe the aforesaid principles and in fact has mis-appreciated the evidence which has caused gross miscarriage of justice. Credibility of a witness has to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out how he has fared in cross-examination and what impression is created by his evidence taken in manner context of the case and not by entering into realm of conjecture and speculation. On scrutinising the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 we find they are consistent with one another so far as the place of occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon of assault used by the accused persons, the fact of dragging of the dead body on the deceased from the place to the grove and nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination to impeach their testimony. The aforesaid oral evidence fully corroborate the medical avidence. In that view of the matter we unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the accused persons and the High Court committed error in acquitting the three respondents namely Inder Dutt, Raghu Raj and Bikram. (Para 7)
(ii) Appeal against Acquittal-Only evidence against N was that while deceased and PW1 were coming she stopped them-Other accused came and assaulted deceased-No evidence of any prior meeting of N with accused persons-N has not been assigned any role in assault of deceased-Order of acquittal against N cannot be interferred with. (Para 5)
(iii) Evidence-Eye-witnesses-Appreciation of evidence-Manner of- (Paras 6 & 7)
JUDGMENT
G.B. Pattanaik, J.-This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1978.
2. The four respondents were tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 201/511 I.P.C. on the allegation that they alongwith some unknown persons mercilessly assaulted deceased Bachan Shah with knives and lathis and thereafter carried a cycle of the deceased and dragged the dead body of the deceased to the nearby grove and left it in a pit and escaped from the place of occurrence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted 4 respondents under Section 147 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and further convicted respondents Inder Dutt, Raghu Raj and Bikram under Sections 148, 302 and 201/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent Noori, however, was acquitted of the charge under Section 201/511 against her. All of them were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 and respondent Noori was further sentenced to undergo for one year under Section 147 and the rest 3 respondents were sentenced under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year under Section 201/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence have been directed to run concurrently. The respondents then filed appeal and the High Court acquitted all of them for the charges levelled against them and hence this present appeal.
3. Prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Ram Bharosey alias Bachan Shah had gone to his tubewell at 10.30. A.M. on 25.2.1975 for getting the same repaired through the machanic, Latta Mallah P.W. 2. As he did not come home to take his lunch till 2.30 P.M. his nephew Iqbal Narain P.W. 1 went to call his uncle for food: When both of them were returning respondent Noori stopped the deceased on the way and started talking to him. In the meantime the three other respondents along with two unknown persons came armed with knives and lathis and started assaulting the deceased. While the deceased was being assaulted, respondent Noori was standing. P.W. 2 who followed the deceased and P.W. 1 soon reached the spot and saw the occurrence. Noori then left the place of occurrence. Rest of the three respondents after mercilessly assaulting the deceased dragged the dead body towards the grove and threw it into a pit, and left the place. The informant Iqbal Narain P.W. 1 prepared a written report and lodged the same to Loni Katra Police Station at 4.30 p.m. On receipt of the said report which was treated as FIR. P.W. 7 registered the case and started investigation. On reaching the place of occurrence, he held the inquest and then sent another officer to search for the accused persons but the accused persons were not found. A dog squad was then sent to trace out the two unknown persons and the said dog went upto the door of the accused Raghu Raj which was found locked. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The investigating officer seized incriminating articles and sent for Chemical Examination. Witnesses were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Finally on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. On being committed the respondents stood their trial. The defence plea is one of denial. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in all of whom PWs 1, 2 and 3 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW. 6 is the doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW. 4 is a witness to the inquest as well as witness to certain seizure made in the course of investigation. PW. 5 is the constable who carried the dead body to the morgue for postmortem examination. PW. 7 is the police officer who had recorded the FIR and investigated into the offence. PW. 8 is a constable and formal witness. PW. 9 is the Head Constable who had made some entries at the Police Station on receipt of the written report. Prosecution also proved several documentary evidence of which Ext. 26 is the FIR, Ext. 9 is the postmortem report of t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
