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

2011 Supreme(SC) 270

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and B. S. Chauhan, JJ.
State of U.P.
Versus.
Naresh and Ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 2006
Decided On: 08.03.2011

Advocates appeared:
R.K. Gupta, Mukesh Verma, Pradeep Misra and Suraj Singh, Advs.
Manoj Prasad, Sadashiv Gupta and Vishal Somany, Advs.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 379/34 - Murder, attempt to murder and theft - Acquittal by High Court - Evidence of injured witness could not have been brushed aside by High Court without assigning cogent reasons - Mere contradictions on trivial matters could not render his deposition untrustworthy - Findings recorded by High Court perverse and cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed. (Paras 18, 20, 23, 26, 28 and 29)

       Criminal Law - Appreciation of evidence - Testimony of injured witness is accorded special status in law and it must be given due weight-age-Being a stamped witness, his presence cannot be doubted-Testimony of injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during occurrence. (Para 23)

       Criminal Law - Appreciation of evidence - Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with victim of offence - Plea relating to relatives evidence remains without any substance in case evidence has credence and it can be relied upon-In such a case defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made. (Para 24)

       Criminal Law - Appreciation of evidence - Normal discrepancies are bound to occur in depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, errors of memory or due to mental disposition at the time of occurrence - However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which evidence can be rejected in its entirety. (Para 25)

       Criminal Law - FIR - FIR is not an encyclopedia of entire case - Not naming of accused in FIR may not be a ground to doubt contents thereof in case statement of witness is found to be trustworthy - In case informant falls to name a particular accused in FIR, this ground alone cannot tilt balance of case in favour of accused. (Para 26)

       Constitution of India - Article 21 - Presumption of innocence is a human right subject to statutory exceptions - While dealing with judgment of acquittal, appellate Court must consider entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether views of trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. (Para 27)

       (2009) 9 SCC 719; (2010) 6 SCC 673; (2010) 10 SCC 259; (2009) 10 SCC 477; AIR 2009 SC 152; AIR 2009 SC 331; (2009) 11 SCC 334; JT 2010 (12) SC 287; (2006) 12 SCC 64; JT 2010 (12) SC 167-Relied.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.5.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2866/1980, acquitting the Respondents by reversing the judgment and order dated 9.12.1980, passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial Nos. 181 and 182 of 1980, convicting the said Respondents under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called the 'IPC') and sentencing them under the first count to life imprisonment, under the second count to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and under the third count to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 16.10.1979, in the morning Naresh, Respondent No. 1 herein, started digging the (Chak Road) to create a passage from the field of the informant Subedar (PW.1). He was stopped by Balak Ram (PW.5). Naresh, Respondent No. 1, not only abused Balak Ram (PW.5), but also assaulted him and threatened him that he would face dire consequences. With regard to this, Balak Ram (PW.5) lodged the complaint of the incident at about 9.30 a.m. in Police Station, Kampil, District Farukhabad. Balak Ram (PW.5) was accompanied to the police station by the informant Subedar (PW.1) and their uncle Sri Ram (deceased). Balak Ram (PW.5) and Sri Ram (deceased) had a rifle and a gun with them.

3. After lodging the complaint in the police station, Kampil, one of them, went to the market to make some purchases and, subsequently, they returned to their village in the evening. While coming back to their village Karanpur, from Kampil, at about 5 p.m. on Kampil - Aliganj Road, as soon as they approached the fields of Gajraj and Ganga Ram; they found the four accused (Respondents herein) emerging out from the bushes armed with gun and country made pistols. They hurled abuse at them and also opened fire. Sri Ram and Balak Ram (PW.5) received gun shot injuries. Sri Ram died on the spot, however, Subedar (PW.1) escaped unhurt. After hearing a distress cry, some persons working in the nearby fields rushed towards the place of occurrence. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence snatching the gun, rifle and ammunitions from the victims.

4. After the arrival of the family members of the victims and some villagers at the place of occurrence, Subedar (PW.1) went to the police station in Kampil, at a distance of 6 miles from the place of occurrence, and lodged the First Information Report (hereinafter called the "FIR") at 9.30 p.m. naming all the accused. Injured Balak Ram (PW.5) was sent for a medical examination at Public Health Centre, Kayamganj which was at a distance of 20 k.m from the place of occurrence. He was examined on the same day by Dr. R.C. Gupta (PW.3) at 10.30 p.m. The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence at 10.15 p.m. on the same night, however, the inquest could not be prepared at night due to inadequate light.

5. Ultimately, inquest proceedings could be started at 6.30 a.m. on 17.10.1979. The body of Sri Ram (deceased) was sealed and handed over to Sughar Singh, Constable (PW.9) for taking to the mortuary for post-mortem at Fatehgarh. The I.O. prepared the site plan and started investigation. As none of the accused could be traced, proceedings under Sections 82-83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called "Cr.P.C.") were initiated on 21.10.1979. For that purpose, the Magistrate issued notices on 25.10.1979. In view thereof, two accused, namely, Naresh and Shyam Singh surrendered on 25.10.1979 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. The remaining two accused, namely, Bharat and Jagpal surrendered on 29.10.1979.

6. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against all the four accused. They denied their involvement in the crime and claimed trial. In order to establish its case before the trial Court, the prosecution e



































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