LexBABU RAM AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
8 c D F G H 328 BABU RAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH February I, 1983 (E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.) Appeal against acquittal- Interference by the High Court - If two views about a particular circumstanc,~ are possible, interference by the High Court with the conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Court is not permissible unless the conclusions were nat pa.fsible - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 378-Evidence Act (I of 1872), Section J-Appreciation of evidence- Criminal trial - Circumstantial eviden1~e -Powers of the Supreme Court (Enlarge .. ,,,.nt of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, Section 2. In the State appeal against acquittal, appellant Babu, bis father Munna and Tulaiyan were convicted by the High Court of Allahabad and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case as unfolded in the First Information Report and the evidence is that Dhani Ram, the deceased . who was living with his father~in~law in village Kuretha catne on 7th of October 1969 to the house of hi• father Ajudbya in village Therro for getting his lands ploughed. On tho 8th October 1969 at about 9 A.M., he along with bis father left village Tberro for village Kuretha for getting -·seeds from one of Dhani Ram's friends. When the two reached the field of Malkban which is said to be near the temple of Ram Kund, the appellants came out from inside 'the Jhunri field of Malkhan and started beating Dbani Ram with lathis. While Tulaiyan, appellant No. 3 caUght holcl of A.judhya and prevented him from having his son Dhani Ram rescued, the other two continued to beat him to death pursuant to the F.I.R. filed at 5.30 p.m. at the police station which was about 12 miles away, Sub Inspector Prem Narain ·reached the spot at 3 A.M. on 9th October, found the dead body of Dhani Ram lying between the fields of Halkha and Malkhan, sent it for postmortem and after investigation filed the cbargesheet. The prosecution produced three witnesses-Ajudhya, father of deceased as PW I, Arjun PW 2 and Kashi Ram PW 3, both PW 2 andlPW 3 being neighbours of PW 1 and of the same caste to prove the case along with the post mortem report which showed the stornach and bladder of the deceased empty and the large intestine with faceal matter. All the appellants entered a plea of non-guilty. Babu's defence w•s that the case was foisted against him as he had earlier on 17th of July l969 - .• • ;..... • BABU RAM 1. U.P. STATB 329 filed a complaint under section 498 I.P.C. against Dhani Ram, his brother . A 'r-, Ghurka, their maternal uncle Halka and one Ram Charan for renticing Babu's wife away. Tulaiyao took the plea that he was being implicated as he was one of the witnesses in the earlier case under section 498 I.P.C. On appraisal of evidence the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the prosecution was too feeble to base any B conviction on that. In his opinion there was no motive on the part of the appellants, and the witnesses could not be sai<\ to be independent and they were mere chance. witnei;ses. He further found that the probability of Dhani Ram being attacked while it was dark !before be bad evacuated or taken his breakfast eould not be weeded out and in all probability the occurrence had taken place not at the place alleged by the Prosecution. On these findings he acquitted all the accused. C On appeal, however, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellants under section 302 read with· section 34 J.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence the ,,.,. appeal under section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 1971. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1:1 The appellate court should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial court and if two views are reasonably possible of the evidence on the record, it should not interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it, because the trial judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not weakened by bis acquittal. [335 F-G] · Stal• of U.P. v. Samman Dass, [1972] 3 S.C.R. 58, followed. 1 :2 In the instant cases a perusal of the evidence proiiuced and the two judgl'nents of the courts below make it clear that the conclusions arri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.