2009 Supreme(SC) 673

2009(3) Supreme 183
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Mahtab Singh & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2006
Decided on : 13-04-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Where Trial court had meticulously examined entire evidence available on record and then reached conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt but High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court when the view taken by the trial court was possible as well as plausible it was held that High Court, seriously erred in disturbing judgment of acquittal and recording finding of guilt against accused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 4/25 – Death by stabbing – Prosecution of accused persons two in number for causing death of deceased by stabbing him –Prosecution case that A2 caught hold of deceased while A1 stabbed him – Trial court acquitted accused persons on ground that prosecution failed to prove charges against them beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal –Allowed by High Court setting aside order of acquittal passed by Trial Court – Appeal – The incident occurred when deceased had gone to betel shop of ‘R’ to purchase bidi – But strangely, despite availability, ‘R’ statement was neither recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor he was tendered in examination before the Court – Prosecution case that a lantern was burning at ‘R’s shop and it was from the light of that lantern that PW – 1and PW-2 could see the culprits – Investigating Officer (PW-6), even did not seize said lantern – Omission on part of PW 6 in not recording statement of ‘R’ and not seizing the lantern from his shop was not innocuous; rather the very genesis of the crime had been rendered doubtful and full of suspicion – One of the main reasons given by High Court in upsetting the judgment of acquittal was that FIR was lodged barely 45 minutes after the incident; distance of police station being hardly one furlong from the place of occurrence – High Court, however, failed to consider that despite the fact that police station was situated close and visible from the place of incident PW-1 took 45 minutes in reporting the incident at the police station which rather created doubt about truthfulness of prosecution case – Apart from that testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 not conformed with collateral circumstances as well as probabilities – The circumstances brought on record showed that reliance on their testimony was not safe – Their testimony was shrouded with grave suspicion and serious doubts – High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court when the view taken by the trial court was possible as well as plausible – High Court, thus, seriously erred in disturbing judgment of acquittal and recording finding of guilt against accused – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 10 to 5, 19, 20)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Accused persons two in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by stabbing him. As per prosecution case A2 caught hold of deceased while A1 stabbed him. Trial court acquitted accused persons on ground that prosecution failed to prove charges against them beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal there against was Allowed by High Court setting aside order of acquittal passed by Trial Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        The incident occurred when deceased had gone to betel shop of ‘R’ to purchase bidi. But strangely, despite availability, ‘R’ statement was neither recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor he was tendered in examination before the Court. Prosecution case that a lantern was burning at ‘R’s shop and it was from the light of that lantern that PW-1and PW-2 could see the culprits. Investigating Officer (PW-6), even did not seize said lantern. Omission on part of PW 6 in not recording statement of ‘R’ and not seizing the lantern from his shop was not innocuous; rather the very genesis of the crime had been rendered doubtful and full of suspicion. One of the main reasons given by High Court in upsetting the judgment of acquittal was that FIR was lodged barely 45 minutes after the incident; distance of police station being hardly one furlong from the place of occurrence. High Court, however, failed to consider a very material aspect that despite the fact that police station was situated close and visible from the place of incident PW-1 took 45 minutes in reporting the incident at the police station which rather created doubt about truthfulness of prosecution case.Apart from that testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 not conformed with collateral circumstances as well as probabilities. The circumstances brought on record showed that reliance on their testimony was not safe. Their testimony was shrouded with grave suspicion and serious doubts. Trial court had meticulously examined entire evidence available on record and then reached conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt. High Court however reversed the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court when the view taken by the trial court was possible as well as plausible. High Court, thus, seriously erred in disturbing judgment of acquittal and recording finding of guilt against accused-Impugned order of High Court was set aside. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.