SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1043

2009(5) Supreme 176
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Shobhanath and Others — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2002
Decided on : 08-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Pramod Swarup, Bharat Ram, Anil Kumar Jha, Advocates.
For the Respondent:H.L. Agarwal, Sr. Adv., G.S. Bhatt, P.K. Bhatt, Uma Shanker, S.P. Tiwari, praveen Swarup, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Judgment based on misreading and misappreciation of evidence cannot be sustained.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – High Court misread and misappreciated the evidence – Acquittal based thereon cannot be sustained. (Para 21)

       Facts of the case :

        1. Parasnath Dubey, PW-1 submitted information contending inter alia that on 02.11.1981 at about 5 p.m., he alongwith his father, Ram Abhilakh deceased, were returning back to their home from Lalganj Bazaar. While said Ram Abhilakh Dubey was standing at the crossing of Setha Road at the shop of Ram Kishore Barayee for taking betel, the accused persons, all of a sudden, came there whereupon the accused Shobhanath and Triveni Prasad instigated other accused persons, at which all of them attacked him.

        2. As a result of the said assault, he had fallen on the ground. Ram Abhilakh Dubey later on succumbed to the injuries i.e. on 3.11.1981 at 8.30 p.m.

        3. The Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order convicted all the accused persons under the aforesaid sections and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

        4. So far as accused Hansraj alias Hansoo is concerned, since he was aged about 16 years, therefore the benefit of the Children Act, 1960 was extended to him. He was not sentenced to jail and was directed to be in Children Home.

        5. The High Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused respondents and acquitted all of them of the aforesaid charges.

       Finding of the Court :

        High Court misread and misappreciated the evidence.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 1984 whereby the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court acquitted the respondents herein from the charges of offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 14.8.1984 and 16.8.1984 passed by the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, whereby the trial court convicted the respondents herein under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for life and also sentenced them to R.I. under various sections. So far as accused Hansraj is concerned as he was found to be almost 16 years, an order was passed that instead of jail he be sent to children home.

2. The aforesaid criminal case was registered on the basis of an information submitted by Parasnath Dubey who was PW-1 contending inter alia that on 02.11.1981 at about 5 p.m., he alongwith his father, Ram Abhilakh deceased, were returning back to their home from Lalganj Bazaar. While said Ram Abhilakh Dubey was standing at the crossing of Setha Road at the shop of Ram Kishore Barayee for taking betel, the accused persons, all of a sudden, came there whereupon the accused Shobhanath and Triveni Prasad instigated other accused persons, namely Doodhnath, Vijai Pal (both sons of Ram Kumar), accused Knasu (son of Doodhnath) at which all of them attacked him. It was also stated in the said information that first of all Vijai Pal stabbed him with a knife and other accused persons thereafter started beating him with lathis and that as a result of the said assault, he had fallen on the ground. It was stated that an alarm was raised by Parasnath Dubey because of which Ram Kripal, Ram Bahal, Parasnath and Lalta Prasad and other reached there and saw the occurrence. A report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station Gauriganj District Sultanpur on 02.11.1981 at about 6.35 p.m. Ram Abhilakh Dubey later on succumbed to the injuries i.e. on 3.11.1981 at 8.30 p.m.

3. The deceased Ram Abhilakh Dubey who received injuries on 02.11.1981 in the aforesaid incident was taken to the hospital at Gauriganj where he was medically examined and an Injury Report was also prepared by the doctor examining him at the hospital Gauriganj, who looking at the grievous nature of injuries received by him sent him to the District Hospital, Sultanpur as his condition was deteriorating. After the death of Ram Abhilakh who died in the hospital on 03.11.1984 at about 8.30 p.m., the post mortem examination was done on 4.11.1981 at about 4.10 p.m.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a First Information Report was prepared at the Police Station and entries in the General Diary were made. After the death of said Ram Abhilakh Dubey, on 3.11.1981, the case was converted to under Section 304 IPC and entries were made accordingly.

5. On receipt of the information, the Police started investigation. During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested. After completion of the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet against all the accused persons. Charges under Section 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC were framed against all the accused persons for having formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object, all of them committed murder of deceased Ram Abhilakh Dubey. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and claimed to be tried

6. During the trial the prosecution examined number of witnesses to prove the occurrence and the guilt of the accused persons in murdering the deceased Ram Abhilakh Dubey. The complainant and the informant Parasnath Dubey (PW-1) was examined as an eye-witness to the occurrence. Besides him, there were two other eye witnesses who were also named in the FIR namely Lalta Prasad (PW-3)

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top