Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1170

2009(5) Supreme 500
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Nandu Vishwakarma & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2001
Decided on 06.07.09

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :Sahdev Singh, Mukesh Verma, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Shree Pal Singh, Rahul Singh, Rama Rao, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is a settled principle of law that when on the basis of the evidence on record two views could be taken - one in favour of the accused and the other against the accused - the one favouring the accused should always be accepted.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 367 read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction of respondent accused persons three in number for causing death of deceased ,brother of informant by inflicting injuries by means of deadly weapons and for assaulting informant and his wife by deadly weapons – Appeal – Acquittal by High Court – Appeal – Deposition of informant and his wife that they were assaulted by respondents with lathi and Gandasa – The said fact was, however, not mentioned in the FIR – Medical examination of PW-2 was conducted on the next morning of incident – Why PW-2 was not brought to the hospital along with deceased and why the Investigating Officer did not take any step to get PW-2 admitted to the hospital had not been explained at all in his statement although he had stated that he has visited the place of occurrence at night – No thumb impression of the informant was obtained on the FIR or in the Entry made at the time of the registration of the case – In view of said position, High Court came to finding that FIR of case was transcribed on the next date, that is, after the Investigation Officer visited the site and not at the time when prosecution alleged to have done – Evidence of PW-2 was not accepted by High Court as there were many vital contradictions in her deposition – Deposition of PW-3 was also not believed by High Court on the ground that his statement was also full of contradictions – Medical report indicated that doctor did not find any Gandasa injury either on the body of the deceased or on the body of PW-1 and PW-2 who were stated to be injured witnesses – The number of contradictions, referred to by High Court in its judgment, in respect of all the witnesses definitely made out a case of plausible view which could be deduced from the evidence on record – Moreover, High Court had given detailed reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case and for acquitting the accused persons – No ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by High Court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14 to 20)
       Facts of the Case :
        Respondent accused persons three in number were convicted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased ,brother of informant by inflicting injuries by means of deadly weapons and for assaulting informant and his wife by deadly weapons. On Appeal, Order of Acquittal was passed by High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        It is a settled principle of law that when on the basis of the evidence on record two views could be taken - one in favour of the accused and the other against the accused - the one favouring the accused should always be accepted. Medical report indicated that doctor did not find any Gandasa injury either on the body of the deceased or on the body of PW-1 and PW-2 who were stated to be injured witnesses. The number of contradictions, referred to by High Court in its judgment, in respect of all the witnesses definitely made out a case of plausible view which could be deduced from the evidence on record. Moreover, High Court had given detailed reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case and for acquitting the accused persons. There was no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by High Court.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High Court acquitted Nandu Vishwakarma, Kalu and Lalloo from the charges under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) read with Section 34 and also under Section 367 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and in order to appreciate the said contentions it would be necessary to state a few facts leading to the registration of the aforesaid criminal case.

3. Dangar Yadav, who is the elder brother of informant PW-1 (Prithivi Pal), and Gujrati Devi (PW-2), wife of the informant are residents of village Samraha, Police Station Karchana. The respondents who are accused in the present case are residents of another village namely village Dubawal, Police Station Sarai Inayat. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that both the informant side as also the accused are involved in litigation pertaining to some plots of land in Kachhar village of Leelapur which is a separate village than the village in which the informant party reside and also from the village where the accused party reside.

4. There was an incident of mutual assault (marpit) on 26th February, 1979 at about 12.00 O’ clock. It is alleged in the first information report (for short ‘the FIR’) that the informant Prithivi Pal (PW-1) and his wife Gujrati Devi (PW-2) were engaged in harvesting their crops in village Kachhar. Around noon, the three alleged accused persons namely Nandu Vishwakarma, Kalu and Lalloo armed with Gandasa, lathi and spear respectively reached the scene of occurrence and started assaulting Dangar Yadav. Dangar Yadav raised an alarm whereupon the two witnesses namely Prithivi Pal (PW-1) and his wife, Gujrati Devi (PW-2), who were present in the vicinity tried to save him but in the process they were also assaulted by the aforesaid accused persons.

5. Consequent to the said assault caused by the aforesaid three accused persons, Dangar Yadav died at the spot and Gujrati Devi (PW-2) also fell down in the field. An oral report of the incident was lodged at about 5.30 p.m. by Prithivi Pal (PW-1) at Police Station Sarai Inayat. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR being Crime No. 50 of 1979 was recorded and the investigation was started by the police. After completion of the investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the respondents herein on the basis of which charges were framed and they were tried. The respondents pleaded not guilty and stated that they were falsely implicated in the said case due to the litigation which is pending between the parties.

6. In the trial, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. After completion of the trial, the learned trial court found all the respondents guilty of the charges against them and convicted all three of them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 367 read with Section 34 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and for rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 367/34 IPC which was to run concurrently.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction the respondents filed an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad. After hearing the appeal the High Court passed an order on 24.05.2000 acquitting all the respondents of the charges under Section 302/34 IPC as also under Section 367/34. While passing the order of acquittal various reasons have been given and recorded by the High Court.

8. All the aforesaid grounds and the findings recorded by the High Court are under challenge in this appeal which has been filed by the State. We have heard Mr. Sahdev Singh, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of U.P. as also Mr. Shree Pal Singh, Advocate appearing for the respondents.

9. The Public P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1170

2009(5) Supreme 500SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.State of U.P. — AppellantversusNandu Vishwakarma & Ors. — RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 786 of 2001Decided on 06.07.09

IMPORTANT POINT It is a settled principle of law that when on the basis of the evidence on record two views could be taken - one in favour of the accused and the other against the accused - the one favouring the accused should always be accepted.

Cases Referred (1)

2009(5) Supreme 500
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Nandu Vishwakarma & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2001
Decided on 06.07.09

IMPORTANT POINT
It is a settled principle of law that when on the basis of the evidence on record two views could be taken - one in favour of the accused and the other against the accused - the one favouring the accused should always be accepted.