Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, JJ.
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Har Dayal Singh and Others – Respondents
Government Appeal No. 1873 of 1984
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 307, 324 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal – Acquittal – Judgment and order – Order of acquittal – First Information Report – Offence of murder – Attempt to murder – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Held, It has been further held that so long as view of trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether High Court agrees with same or not, verdict of trial court cannot be interdicted and High court cannot supplant over view of trial court – Appellate Court does not lightly disturb findings of fact recorded by Court below – If on basis of same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and view favouring accused is accepted by Court, that is sufficient for upholding order of acquittal – However, if Appellate Court comes to conclusion that findings of Court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on evidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, Appellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
1. Heard Sri K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the appellants and Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Vidya Kant, learned counsel for the accused-opposite parties.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that a First Information Report being Case Crime No. 14/1983 dated 11.02.1983 under Section 302/324 I.P.C., P.S. S.M. North, Sub-District Puwaya, District Sahajahanpur, was lodged by the informant eyewitness PW-1 Avtar Singh, who is the son of the deceased Kundan Singh. As per FIR version, there arose a dispute of return of buffaloes purchased by the deceased from the accused Hardayal Singh and simple scuffle took place about three or four months before the date of incident, i.e. 11.02.1983. This resulted in enmity. When the deceased Kundan Singh along with the informant were cutting barseem in their agricultural field, the accused Hardayal Singh came at the place with sooja and started abusing and thereafter called his brothers - the accused Tirlok Singh, Balvinder Singh and also his relative Bhura. Tirlok Singh and Balwinder Singh were having swords and Bhura was having “Kanta.” They all started beating the deceased Kundan Singh and when the informant's uncle, Dileep Singh and his son Sardar and the informant's mother ran to protect the deceased, the accused Hardayal assaulted on the chest of the deceased, Tirlok and Balwinder assaulted with swords and Kanta and also assaulted on Dileep Singh, Sardar Singh and informant's mother and caused injuries to them and thereafter fled away. The time of incident was said to be 01:00 P.M. and FIR was registered at 09.15 P.M. Delay in lodging first information report was explained by the informant in the FIR itself. The I.O. proceeded on spot and took samples of blood lying on the earth and on leaves of wheat Exhibit (Ka-13 and Ka-14) and white pagri with blood stains (Ka-15). The injuries of the informant Avtar Singh was examined by the medical officer on 11.02.1983 before lodging of the FIR which were found to be simple caused by some sharp edged object. The injuries of Sardar Singh was examined by the medical officer on 11.02.1983, but the prosecution has not examined him during trial. The injuries of Dileep Singh was examined on 11.02.1983 by medical officer and he was examined by prosecution as PW-2. The mother of the informant, namely Surinder Kaur, also got herself medically examined on 14.02.1983 at 01:45 P.M. and her injury No. 2 was found to be simple caused by a sharp edged object and injury No. 1 and 3 were found caused by hard or blunt object. All the injuries were found to be simple. Autopsy of the deceased’s body was done and the following ante-mortem injuries were found:
(2) Incised wound 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone back left hand transversely placed coming upto web between thumb and index finger, cutting 3rd, 4th and 5th metacarpal bones.
(3) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle left side scalp 8 c.m. above left ear.
(4) Contusion 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. upper part pinna left ear.
(5) Two incised wounds on one line, two c.m. apart, each 2 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. x skin, back right wrist.
(6) Abrasion 2.5 c.m. Long x .6 c.m., top let shoulder.”
3. The doctor conducting the autopsy found 500 m.l. blood in the chest cavity, right lung had collapsed, heart was empty, in the stomach there were three ounces of semi-digested food, in large intestine faecal matter was present, in small intestine, digested food was present. The medical officer opined that cause of death of the deceased is due to shock and haemorrhage caused by ante-mortem injuries. The post-mortem report was filed as Exhibit K-19.
4. The prosecution examined the informant Avtar Singh as PW-1, (eyewitness), Dileep Singh as PW-2 (eye-witness), Dr. Habib Ahmed as PW-3, who examined injuries of injured, Ram Swarup Verma
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
In appeal against acquittal, interference only if perverse, misreads evidence or guilt sole possible view; upheld here due to medical inconsistencies, unexplained accused injuries, improbable facts, ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the importance of circumstantial ....
Eyewitness testimony carries significant evidentiary weight; convictions can be sustained on reliable single eyewitness accounts without need for corroboration if found trustworthy.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to prove guilt, especially in cases of acquittal.
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence and unreliable eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The principle of double presumption in favor of the accused and the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
