1. Conviction for murder under Section 302, IPC — Appeal against High Court order setting aside conviction based on eye-witness testimony. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 368
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
State Of Uttarakhand - Appellant
Versus
Deepu Verma @ Devendra Lal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1700 of 2014
Decided On : 06-02-2025
Important Points
In criminal cases, inconsistencies in witness testimonies create reasonable doubt, warranting the benefit of doubt to the accused, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the lower court's decision is perverse.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against acquittal - The State challenged the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent of murder charges, arguing that the testimonies of eye-witnesses were consistent and corroborated. The High Court found inconsistencies in the testimonies, leading to reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 8, 13, 21)
(B) Benefit of Doubt - In criminal cases, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if inconsistencies in witness testimonies arise. The court upheld the principle that unless the High Court's view is perverse, it should not be interfered with. (Paras 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was convicted for murder based on witness testimonies. The High Court reversed this conviction, citing inconsistencies among the witnesses. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to acquit was based on reasonable doubt arising from witness inconsistencies, which was upheld by this Court. (Paras 22, 23)
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of witness testimonies and whether the High Court's acquittal was justified. (Paras 12, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inconsistencies in witness testimonies warranted the benefit of doubt to the accused, affirming that appellate courts should not interfere unless the lower court's decision is perverse. (Paras 20, 22)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Benefit of Doubt - In criminal cases, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if inconsistencies in witness testimonies arise. The court upheld the principle that unless the High Court's view is perverse, it should not be interfered with. (Paras 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was convicted for murder based on witness testimonies. The High Court reversed this conviction, citing inconsistencies among the witnesses. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to acquit was based on reasonable doubt arising from witness inconsistencies, which was upheld by this Court. (Paras 22, 23)
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of witness testimonies and whether the High Court's acquittal was justified. (Paras 12, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inconsistencies in witness testimonies warranted the benefit of doubt to the accused, affirming that appellate courts should not interfere unless the lower court's decision is perverse. (Paras 20, 22)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kaushalpati Gautam, A.A.G. Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. S Janani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Sharika Rai, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kaushalpati Gautam, A.A.G. Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. S Janani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Sharika Rai, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. State contends eye-witness testimonies are consistent despite minor contradictions — Respondent argues inconsistencies justify acquittal and the High Court's view is a possible one. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Material contradictions regarding the distance of the scene and the sequence of arrival of witnesses cast doubt on the eye-witness testimony. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. An appellate court will not interfere with a finding of acquittal unless the view taken is totally perverse or impossible. (Para 12 , 13 , 20 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 23 )
6. Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's finding of acquittal?
Interference is permissible only if the view taken by the High Court is found to be totally perverse or impossible. If two views are possible, the court will not interfere simply because another view appears possible. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. How is the principle of benefit of doubt applied in criminal cases involving inconsistent witness testimonies?
In criminal cases, if inconsistencies in the testimonies of eye-witnesses create doubt regarding the occurrence of the incident or the credibility of the witness, the benefit of that doubt must be granted to the accused. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
8. How should courts evaluate the testimonies of rustic villagers containing inconsistencies?
While minor inconsistencies and contradictions may be natural in the evidence of rustic villagers, they must be weighed against material contradictions that make the testimony difficult to believe. (Para 9 , 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The State of Uttarakhand has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 17th July 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2010 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the judgment and order of the Court of Sessions Judge, Almora (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) in S.T. No. 15 of 2009 dated 9th August 2010 convicting the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The prosecution’s case is that on the date of the incident PW-1 (Ganeshi Lal) along with PW-2 (Nirmala Verma), who is the daughter of PW-1 and PW-4 (Hira Devi), wife of PW-1, were present in the courtyard. PW-1 heard a cry coming from the courtyard of the victim, which was situated adjacent to the courtyard of PW-1 and he saw the victim being assaulted by the respondent-accused by a sickle. On seeing PW-1, the accused ran away. Initially, the victim was taken to the PHC Takula and thereafter shifted to Base hospital at Almora. The victim succumbed to the injuries. PW-1 lodged a complaint at Police Station Takula, District Someshwar, Almora.
3. On the basis of the oral report of PW-1, a First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed.
4. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Almora (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”). The learned trial court, at the conclusion of the trial, convicted the respondent and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.
5. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent-accused preferred an appeal before the High Court.
6. The learned Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal filed by the State.
7. We have heard Shri Kaushalpati Gautam, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing on behalf of the appellant-State and Smt. S. Janani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
8. Shri Kaushalpati Gautam, learned AAG appearing for the appellant-State submits that the learned Division bench of the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the well- reasoned judgment and order passed by the trial court. It is submitted that the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, who are the eye-witnesses is consistent. He further submits that the testimony of PW-1 is also duly corroborated by PW-3 (Shankar Lal Verma). It is also contended that merely because there are inconsistencies in the evidence, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded.
9. Shri Gautam submitted that all the witnesses are rustic villagers and therefore minor inconsistencies and contradictions would be natural in their evidence. It is submitted that, however, insofar as the role of assault attributed to the present respondent is concerned, all the three eye-witnesses are consistent which is also corroborated by PW-3. The learned AAG therefore submits that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court should be quashed and set aside.
10. Smt. S. Janani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the contrary, submits that all the three eye-witnesses have given totally inconsistent versions. She submits that in view of the inconsistencies in their testimonies, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly allowed the appeal. It is submitted that the view taken by the learned Division Bench of the High Court is a possible view and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
11. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the material placed on record.
12. By now, the position of law with regard to the interfer
