BARATI versus STATE OF U. P.

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 12-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

570 
BARA TI 
v. 
STATE OF U. P. 
March 12, 1974 
[H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Penal Code-S. J-02 
Code of Criminal Procedure-s. 411-Power of appellate Court to review at /ar§e 
evidence on which order of acqui11al by trial court founded-No limftation on power 
-Evidence of dose relations-If could. be btlitved-Dying declaration-Meet of. 
The appellant and his companions were charged with an offence under s. 302 
I.P.C: for causing the death of the deceased by pouring acid on him ·when he was 
sleeping on his cot on the night of the occurrence. After recording the :first infor4 
mation report the police sub-inspector recorded the statement of the deceased and 
at the dispensary the doctor recorded the statement of the deceased, in both of 
which he stated that the appeJlant poured acid over his body and caused iiijurics to 
him. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. Disbelievina the prosecution 
evidence the trial court acquitted him.· The High Court on the other hand accepted 
the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced the _appe. 
llant to life imprisonment but acquitted the remaining two accused. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that the High Court should not have 
reversed the judgDient of the trial court and the evidence JClied upon by the High 
Court was not satisfactory. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal. 
HELD : that the approach of the trial court was clearly ~onable and the 
Hi.Rh Court was fully justified in setting aside the acquittal of the appellant. It is 
well settled that in an appeal under s. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the 
Court has fUll power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal 
was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal 
should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that ·power unless it be 
found expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code 
before reaching its conclusion upon facts the High Cow:t should give proper weight 
and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial judge as to the credi· 
bility of the witn~j (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, 
a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his 
trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt 
and (4) the-slowness of an appellate court in disturbing the finding of fact arrived at 
by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. (576 D·F] 
In the instant case there was no doubt that the deceased died as a result of acid 
bums. There was no cogent reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution 
witnesses. The trial court was wrong in rejectirtg evidence of these witnesses on the 
ground that they were related to the deceased. Close relatives of the deceased would 
normally be most reluctant to spare the real assailant and falsely mention the name of 
another person as the one responsible for causing injuries to the deceased. The 
deceased would not spare his real assailant and faJsely mention the name of the 
appellant as one who poured acid over his body. There was no reason to discard 
the dying declaration made by the api:>ellant to the police sub-inspector. The trial 
Court was wrong in rejecting the-11ying declaration to the police (F.l.R.) on the 
ground that the deceased had stated to the doctor that he had become unconscious 
after the occurrence.· There was nothing in the statement recorded by the doctor 
to jndicate that the deceased remained unconscious for a long time and as such was 
not. in position to lodge the F.l.R. The fact that the language used in the dying de· 
clarat;on made to the doctor was rather chaste would not go to show that the said 
!ltatement could not have been made by the deceased. As to the language used in 
the dying declaration there is nothin·g abnormal or unusual in the same person using 
colloquial language while talking to one person and using refined language while 
tilking to another person. [574 E·F ; 575D.~ 576A] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
BARATI v. u. P. STATE (Khanna, J.) 
571 
CRIMINAL APP2LLAT< 
JL'RISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 226 
of 1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
14th April, 1970, of the Allahabad High Couit (Lucknow Bench) 
at Lucknow in Criminal appeal no. 260 of 1968. 
B 
A. N. Mu/la and 0. N. Mohindroo, for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 

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