ANIL KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 16-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ANIL KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 and Section 302 r/w Seetion 34-
Murder-Trial Court acquitted all the three accused disbelieving the 
Prosecution version-High Court reappreciated the evidence and convicted 
A 
B 
only the appellant accused as the other two accused died-On appeal 
C 
decision of High Court upheld-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 
313. 
Criminal Trial: 
Credibility of prosecution case-Affected only when medical evidence 
D 
totally improbabilises oral evidence. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Injuries sustained by accused in the same 
occurrence in which offence has been committed-Prosecution's failure to 
prove-Held, will not affect the prosecution case. 
· E 
Accused-appellant along with two others faced trial for alleged 
commission of offence under Section 302 and Section 302 read with 
Section 34. All three accused were acquitted by Trial Court. State 
preferred appeal before High Court. During pendency of appeal two 
accused died and High Court convicted appellant accused for alleged 
F 
offence after reviewing and re-appreciating· the evidence. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD, 1. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing 
the evidence upon which order of acquittal is based. Generally, the 
order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption 
of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the acquittal. If 
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing 
to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which 
449 
G 
H 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
is favourable to the accused should be adopte(I. In a case of acquittal 
where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate 
Court to re-appreciate the evidence, for the purpose of ascertaining as 
to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. 
B 
c 
D 
.E 
F 
G 
(454-H; 455-A, B, CJ 
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 2 
Supreme 567; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 
AIR (1973) SC 2622; Ramesh Babula! Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 
Supreme 167; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 3 Supreme 320; 
Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 7 Supreme 152; State 
of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 5 Supreme 508; State of Punjab v. 
Pohla Singh and Anr., (2003) 7 Supreme 17 and Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal 
and Anr., JT (2003) 9 SC 17, referred to. 
2.1. There is no such law that in each and every case where 
prosecution fails to explain the injuries found on some of the accused, 
the prosecution case should automatically be rejected, without any further 
probe. Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution .will not affect 
prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and 
superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent 
and disinterested, so probable, consistent and trustworthy, that it 
outweighs the effect of omission on the part of prosecution to explain the 
injuries. [455-F; 457-B] 
Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai ':'· The State ofBihar, [1968] 3 SCR 525; 
Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1976) 4 SCC 394; Vijayee Singh 
and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1990) SC 1459 and RQm/agan Singh v. 
State of Bihar, AIR (1972) SC 2593, referred to. 
2.2. It is not an invariable rule that prosecution has to explain the 
injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. When 
prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been 
committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable 
doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain 
how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on.the 
person of accused. It is more so when injuries .are simple.or superficial 
in nature. In the case at hand, trifle and superficial injuries on accused 
are of little assistance to them to throw doubt on the veracity of 
H 
prosecution case. [457-D, E, F) 
ANIL KUMAR v.STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 
451 
Hare Krishna Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR (1988) SC 863 
A 
and Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand, (2003) 8 Supreme 476, referred 
to. 
3. The Trial Court's conclusions were patently based on surmises 
and conjectures and were contrary to the evidence. There was no basis 
B 
for the Trial Court to conclude that appellant-accused acted in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.