2010 Supreme(SC) 184

2010 (1) Supreme 754
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Guru Charan and Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 297-298 of 2002
Decided on : 23-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court does not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the High Court unless that finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the appraisement of evidence.
2. The scope of interference in Article 136 in an appeal against acquittal is rather limited.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 read with Section 34,307-Prosecution of respondents accused persons for committing murder of two persons in furtherance of their common intention and for committing murderous assault on PW2- Trial Court held that prosecution had successfully proved the charges against respondents –Trial Court convicted A1 to A3 u/s. 302 read with Section 34 IPC whereas A4 was convicted under Section 307 IPC-Appeals thereagainst- High Court re-examined the entire evidence and came to conclusion that prosecution story was unbelievable and allowed appeals filed by convicts, acquitting them of all charges while Reference made by Sessions Judge for confirmation of death sentence awarded to A1 to A3 was rejected- Appeals -On an analysis of evidence, High Court concluded that evidence of PW1 was unbelievable for a number of reasons-PW1 was sitting at back of the bus and when his uncle was being shot at, he hid behind seat- He made no effort to save his uncle deceased-His account of incident was so graphical that he could only do this if he was visible to the respondents- In that case, he would not have been spared- High Court, therefore, doubted his presence at the scene of the crime-Again investigating officer had been over enthusiastic to ensure presence of PW 1 which was, to say the least, doubtful- High Court also found that evidence of PW 1about injuries on bus driver, was contrary to medical evidence- Upon thorough examination of the entire witness, High Court concluded that the evidence of P.W.2 was falsified by evidence of Dr. P.W.6 -Consequently, PW 2 had also been held to be unreliable witness-After examination of eye witnesses who testified for prosecution, the High Court noticed another relevant omission in case of prosecution- Driver, sustained injuries in the same incident and by the same assailants- He was also an eye witness- He was alleged to have taken P.W.1 to the police Station- Yet he had not been examined by prosecution- It had also come in the evidence of the witnesses that there were numerous other passengers in the bus-The prosecution also did not care to examine any other passenger who would have been the eye witness to the whole transaction- In this state of the evidence, High Court concluded that prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of respondents - View taken by High Court held to be both plausible and possible-Findings recorded by High Court did not warrant any interference by this Court- Appeals dismissed. (Paras 16 to 30)

       Facts of the Case :

        Respondents accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for committing murder of two persons in furtherance of their common intention and for committing murderous assault on PW2. Trial Court held that prosecution had successfully proved the charges against respondents .Trial Court convicted A1 toA3 u/s. 302read with Section 34 IPC whereas A4 was convicted under Section 307 IPC. On Appeals thereagainst, High Court re-examined the entire evidence and came to conclusion that prosecution story was unbelievable and allowed appeals filed by convicts, acquitting them of all charges while Reference made by Sessions Judge for confirmation of death sentence awarded to A1 toA3 was rejected.

        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        On an analysis of evidence, High Court concluded that evidence of PW1 was unbelievable for a number of reasons.PW1 was sitting at back of the bus and when his uncle was being shot at, he hid behind seat. He made no effort to save his uncle deceased .His account of incident was so graphical that he could only do this if he was visible to the respondents. In that case, he would not have been spared. High Court, therefore, doubted his presence at the scene of the crime. Again investigating officer had been over enthusiastic to ensure presence of PW 1 which was, to say the least,doubtful. High Court also found that evidence of PW 1about injuries on bus driver, was contrary to medical evidence.Upon thorough examination of the entire witness, High Court concluded that the evidence of P.W.2 was falsified by evidence of Dr. P.W.6 .Consequently, PW 2 had also been held to be unreliable witness.After examination of eye witnesses who testified for prosecution, the High Court noticed another relevant omission in case of prosecution. Driver, sustained injuries in the same incident and by the same assailants. He was also an eye witness. He was alleged to have taken P.W.1 to the police Station. Yet he had not been examined by prosecution. It had also come in the evidence of the witnesses that there were numerous other passengers in the bus. The prosecution also did not care to examine any other passenger who would have been the eye witness to the whole transaction. In this state of the evidence, High Court concluded that prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of respondents . View taken by High Court was held to be both plausible and possible. Findings recorded by High Court did not warrant any interference by this Court. Appeals dismissed.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.