BASUDEO YADAV versus SURENDRA YADAV & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 25-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' * 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 593 
BASUDEO YADAV 
v. 
SURENDRA YADAV & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.687 of 2001) 
AUGUST 25, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss 364 rlw s.302, s. 302 rlw s.149 
and s.201, s.148 - Conviction under - Accused armed with c 
weapons formed a group and forcibly dragged deceased 
towards river bank in night hours - Incident witnessed by 
witnesses -
Next day dead body of deceased found -
Conviction -
However, acquittal by High Court -
Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - High Court acted 0 
on surmises and conjectures and disturbed the findings 
recorded by trial court- It did not record a finding that analysis 
of evidence and conclusions arrived at by trial court were 
erroneous, thus, was not justified in 'drawing different 
conclusions - Identification of accused was possible - Since 
time of death is not given, presence of undigested food is of E 
no consequence - There was no delay in lodging of FIR -
Also, witness categorically stated as to why they went to the 
particular police station - Thus, order of trial court upheld -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 378 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 378 and 386 
- Appeal against acquittal - Powers of appellate court -
Discussed. 
F 
According to the prosecution case, on the fateful 
day, around 8.00 PM, all the accused persons armed G 
with deadly weapons formed a group and forcibly 
dragged away VY towards river bank. PW 1, PW 4 and 
PW 3 saw the incident but ·they concealed themselves. 
However, PW 3 came out. and informed BS, brother of 
593 
H 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
A VY-PW6. Thereafter, PW 6 along with PW 3 and PW 2 
went towards the place where VY was dragged by the 
accused but did not find any trace of the whereabouts 
. of VY. PW6, PW 3 and PW 2 then went to the house of 
Superintendent of Police; Thereafter, they went to 
B Muffasil PS as being directed, and lodged information 
by giving fardbeyan. On basis of fardbeyan FIR was 
registered and was sent to Kotwali PS for investigation 
within whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. PW 1 
returned home and PW 4 went to the house of PW 6. The 
c next day PW 5 found the body of VY and informed PW 6 
and the police. Inquest was held over the dead body. The 
doctor conducted the post mortem. He opined that the 
injuries were caused by fire arm and were ante mortem 
. in nature. Investigations were carried out. Witnesses were 
0 
examined. 14 persons faced trial. During trial two accused 
.··"'"t·r~·".died and two absconded. Trial court convicted and 
$e'i1J~gced .. the remaining accused u/s 364 r/w s.302 and 
s. 3(fa-rJijV1i~·:~149;'and s.201 and s.148 IPC. During penc;tency 
of appeal: 3 accusJtd died. High Court acquitted the 
rema·ining accused .. H~,ce the present appeal. 
E 
"'· 
Allowing the appeal; t~l:le Court 
' 
HELD: 1.1 There is no( :embargo on the appellate 
court reviewing the evidence ·.upon which an order of 
acquittal is based. Generally, tli,e order of acquittal shall 
F not be interfered with because the presumption of 
innocence of the accused is 1further strengthened by 
acquittal. The golden thread w~ich runs through the web 
of administration of justice in" criminal cases is that if 
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the 
G case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the 
other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to 
the accused should be adopted. The paramount 
consideration of the court is ·to ensure that miscarriage 
of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which 
H may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than 
BASUDEO YADAV v. SURENDRA YADAV 
595 
& ORS. 
"-+( 
from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where 
A 
admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the 
appellate court to re-appreciate the evid~nce where the 
accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of 
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really 
committed any offence or not. [Para 8] [602-E-H] 
B 
+ 
1.2 The principle to be followed by the appellate 
court considering the appeal against the judgment of 
acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling 
and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned 
judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and c 
convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated 
in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 
[Para 8] [603-A B] 
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P, 2003 (3)

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