ABDUL LATIF AND ORS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 24-01-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

- ). 
"·· 
'" 
ABDUL LATIF AND ORS . 
... 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
January 24, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
611 
Additional Evidence or exaniining so111e witnesses by appfllate courr.-Crin1i-
11a/ Procedure Code (Act fl of 1974), 1973 S. 391 r/w 311. [S. 428 r/w 540 
cf 1898 Code]-Scope of-Discretionary power of the High Court uls 311 Crl. 
P. C. (Old 540)-Constitution of India, 
1950, 
Art. 
136-!nterference 
by 
.Supren1e Court in special leave. 
A 
B 
The appellants variously armed entered the· house of Khan 
Mohammad, 
·deceased and husband of P.W. 1 Jamila, assaulted him with various sharp cut-
C 
ting instruments, and took away his body which was later recovered from a 
river \Vhere it was found to have been cut into pieces. 
On the evidence of 
Jamila (PW 1) Nazeer (PW l) father of the deceased, and Sughara (PW 4) 
mother-in-law of the deceased, the appellants were convicted u/s 302/149 and 
201/ 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and various terms of impri-
sonment under various sections. The conviction and the sentences were affirmed 
by the High Court in appeal, after rejecting the oral application to take the 
additional evidence of P.W. Dhannu (brother of the deceased) and PW Zinat 
(siSter of PW 1) by examining them as material witnesses in view of the affida-
D 
vits dt. 12-7-69 and 27-1-68 filed by them alleging that six of the appellants 
including Abdul Latif had not participated in the occurrence at all. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court. 
HELD : 1. Unless there is some subsJantial error in the judgment of the 
High Court, Supreme Court would not interfere in special leave on the findings 
cf fact which has been arrived at by the High Court on the relevant material. 
[613 A-Bl 
E 
,_, 
2. All the decisions of this Court u/s 540 Crl. P.C., 1898 indicate that the 
main test is to determine \vhether the e\'idence is necessary "for the just decision 
-of the case". 
[613 Fl 
In the instant case :-
(a) The evidence of PW Dhannu and PW Zinat was 
not material and 
would not help· in proving the case, especially when even in their affidavits both 
F 
did not allege that they \Vere not examined by the· Police or· that the statements 
taken doWn by the Police1 were wrongly recorded or that they made no state-
n1ent before the police. supporting the case. 
On the contrary, their statements 
were recorded by the Police on 1-8-67. 
Even if these· witnesses were allowed 
to be. examined by the High Court and had deposed in favour of the accused, 
they would have been confronted with the previous statement made before the 
Police which would have rendered their testimony wholly 
contradictory 
and 
discrepant. Their examination in the High Court would have amounted to an 
G 
"Cxercise in futility. [613 A, C, DJ 
(b) It would have been better if Ramagopa1 the constable would have been 
examined before the Sessions Court, but his non-examination does not put the 
prosecution case out of Court and his evidence \Vas not necessary for the just 
<1.ecision of the case and [613 G] 
( c) there is .no error of law in the judgment of the High Court so as to 
justify any interference. 
[613 G] 
· 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
<Of 1977. 
Criminal Appeal No. 376 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 2 S.C.R, 
A 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
B 
c 
D 
E 
13-12-1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 300 
of 1970. 
R. K. Garg,. S. C. Agarwal and Shiv Pujan .Singh for the Appel~ 
]ants. 
D. P. Uniyal and 0. P. Rana for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J.-This is an appeal by Special Leave confined only 
to the question, whether section 428 read with section 540 of the old 
Cr. P.C. was applicable to the facts of this case. The appeal is directed 
against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad by which the 
convictions of the appellant under various sections of the Penal Code 
have been upheld by the High Court. 
The main conviction against 
the appellants were under section 302/149 and 201/149 I.P.C. 
All 
the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and various terms of 
imprisonment under various sections. It is not necessary for ns to· 
give a narrative of the prosecution case, because in view of the limited 
nature of the leave, we have to deal only with the question as to how 
far the High Court was justified in rejecting the oral prayer of the 
appellant for taking additiona

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.