Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 236

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Guru Dutt Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2015
Decided on : 06-05-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Vikas Bansal, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, order would be perverse.
(2) When there is a direct evidence in form of eyewitnesses and eyewitnesses are trustworthy and reliable, absence of motive is insignificant.
(3) Where there are clinching evidence of eyewitnesses, mere non-examination of some of witnesses/independent witnesses and/or in absence of examination of any independent witnesses would not be fatal to case of prosecution.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, order would be perverse – But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, conclusions would not be treated as perverse and findings would not be interfered with – Where trial Court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of evidence which is but barely possible, it is obvious duty of High Court to interfere in interest of justice, lest administration of justice be brought to ridicule. (Paras 7.2.2 and 7.6)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – When there is a direct evidence in form of eyewitnesses and eyewitnesses are trustworthy and reliable, absence of motive is insignificant – Where there are clinching evidence of eyewitnesses, mere non-examination of some of witnesses/independent witnesses and/or in absence of examination of any independent witnesses would not be fatal to case of prosecution – Examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to prosecution case – Prosecution has proved place of incident as stated in FIR – Each and every ground has been elaborately dealt with by High Court and on reappreciation of entire evidence on record High Court has specifically come to conclusion that findings recorded by trial Court are perverse and thereafter High Court has interfered with judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court – High Court is justified in reversing judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court and consequently convicting accused – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8.1, 9, 10, 10.3, 13 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 2895 of 1982, by which High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the State and has reversed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and consequently has convicted the appellant – original accused no.4 for the aforesaid offences, the original accused no.4 has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Even as per the evidence of the witnesses, when after sustaining the injuries of lathi and spear, the deceased fell down on the earth when other persons started coming and while leaving from that place, one of the accused Ramraj Pathak fired his pistol towards the deceased. It was never the case of witnesses that bullet hit the deceased. On the contrary, Shatrughan Prasad Pathak, PW2 has specifically stated that the deceased has not sustained any firearm injury, although Ramraj Pathak has fired at him.
Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 2895 of 1982, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the State and has reversed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the I PC and consequently has convicted the appellant -original accused no.4 for the aforesaid offences, the original accused no.4 has preferred the present appeal.

2. That as per the case of the prosecution the deceased was the Pradhan of the village for more than two decades. The accused were having grudge against him. On 6.10.1981 at about 7:00 a.m., the deceased was going, as usual, to attend the call of nature towards the bank of river Yamuna situated near his village. When the deceased reached near Basic School, Nagarwar, all the four accused suddenly emerged out from the Bajra field of Ram Sajiwan. Accused Murlidhar Pathak and Gurudutt Pathak were armed with lathis, Dharmraj Pathak was armed with spear and Ramraj Pathak was armed with pistol. The deceased was attacked by the accused with spear and lathis. The deceased fell down on earth. They crushed his head with lathis. On hue and cry, first informant Satrughan Pathak, his brother Ramsukh Pathak, Lalmani Pathak and Shiv Shankar, who were already there at a short distance, rushed towards the deceased whereupon accused Ramraj Pathak fired a shot from his pistol towards the deceased and all the assailants ran away along with their weapons. The deceased received his instantaneous death at the spot.

2.1 Satrughan Pathak, son of the deceased, lodged an FIR against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I PC. The FIR was investigated by one Sukhram Sonkar, the Investigating Officer. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Heprepared the Panchnama at the spot. He arrested the accused Murlidhar Pathak on 07.10.1981 at about 4:00 a.m. after a little chase and during the course of his arrest police personnel inflicted injuries at his person near bridge of river Fagawa.

2.2 Dr. Nisar Ahmad conducted the post-mortem. He noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:

i) Depressed fracture of skull with fracture of left parietal bone. In fact all the bones were broken. Brain matter had been liquefied.

ii) Multiple abrasion on left pinna.

iii) Incised wound over the scalp 5 inch above ear T.U. directed, 2 inch x 2 inch. Brain matter going out.

iv) Lacerated wound above the occipital, 2 inch x 2 inch. Brain matter going out.

v) Incised wound over the left occiput, 2 inch x 1 inch.

vi) Incised wound over lateral aspect of palm, 1 inch x 1 inch x muscle deep.

vii) Lacerated wound on the posterior aspect of skull, 1 inch x 1 inch x muscle deep.

viii) Incised wound over the proximal of the occipital.

ix) Incised wound over the left parietal bone, 1 inch x 1 inch x brain cavity deep with brain matter going out.

x) Incised wound over the parietal bone, 1 inch x 1 inch. Brain matter was going out.

xi) Incised wound over the frontal bone, 1 inch x 1 inch. Brain matter going out.

As per the post-mortem report, the cause of the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injuries.

2.3 On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet against Murlidhar Pathak and three absconded accused. That after the remaining persons came to be arrested, as the case was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. All the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 I PC for the murder of the deceased-Ram Aasare Pathak. All the accused denied the charges and therefore they came to be tried for the aforesaid offences.

2.4 To prove the case, the prosecution exam