BUDH SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 715 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BUDH SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
MAY 12, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860/Arms Act, 1959-Sections 148, 302 and 30711491 
Section 27-Murder of two and attempt to murder one-Prosecutionfor-
Lacuna in investigation-Prosecution case not supported by medical 
evidence-Non-examination of some of the eye-witnesses-Two of the 
witnesses were related witnesses-Delay in post mortem examination and in 
medical examination of the injured eye-witness-Acquittal by Trial Court-
Conviction by High Court-On appeal, held: Acquittal justified in view of 
facts of the case. 
Appeal-Appeal against acquittal-Scope of Interference-Power of 
appellate court-Held: Ordinarily acquittal order is not set aside where two 
views are possible-However, appellate court is free to consider evidence 
on record and to take into consideration whether trial court failed to take 
into consideration admissible evidence or had considered the evidences 
A 
B 
c 
D 
contrary to law and also where burden of proof was wrongly placed. 
E 
The appellants-accused were tried for having caused death of 'R' 
and his wife 'C' and also for attempt to commit murder of their son 
- the first informant (PW I). All the appellants except appellant No. 5 
were related to each other. The prosecution case was that there was 
some land dispute between the accused and deceased. When both the 
deceased were irrigating their field, the appellants came to the agricultural 
land of the deceased armed with double barrel gun, country made guns 
and country made pistols. There was exchange of abuse between the 
deceased and the appellants. Hearing the noise PW-2, PW-3, 'V' and 
one 'S' arrived at the place of occurrence. Deceased persons and PW 
1 were shot by the appellants. Both the deceased ran a few paces, but 
fell down at some distan~e. PW-I thereafter went to Police Station with 
P.W. 2 and 'V'. He lodged FIR at about 00.25 a.m. On 13.4.1992. FIR 
was dispatched to the Court at about 6.25 a.m. on 13.4. I 992, but the 
same reached the Court on 18.4.1992. At the Police Station one Sub-
715 
t 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
716 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
Inspector was present, but St of the Police Station (PW-7) was not there. 
PW-7 after receiving wireless message reached the place of occurrence 
at night. Medical examination of PW-I was done by PW-4 at about 4 
a.m. on 13.4.1992. However the advised X-ray was taken on 18.4.1992 
by PW-6 whereby an opaque substance was found which according to 
the doctor wa~ a metallic pellet. The dead bodies, though were sent for 
autopsy on 13.4.1992, the post-mortem of the same was done on 
14.4.1992. 
PWs 1, 2 and 3 were examined as eye-witnesses. Trial Court 
acquitted the appellants on the grounds that the FIR was ante-timed and 
C ante-dated; exact time of occurrence was not proved; the injuries on the 
person of PW-1 were doubtful, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who were 
chance witnesses, were not reliable; and that the medical evidence did 
not support prosecution case. Division Bench of High court convicted 
the accused. 
D 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that prosecution 
failed to prove that injuries suffered by PW-1 was a gun shot injury; 
that medical evidence did not support the prosecution version of mode 
and manner of the incident; that the delay in sending the FIR to the 
Court has not been explained; that the delay in getting postmortem of 
E 
the dead bodies and non-availability of the doctors for the same has not 
been explained; that the delay in getting post mortem of the dead bodies 
and non-availability of the doctors for the same has not been explained; 
that from the medical report it appeared that death could have taken 
place any time between 3 p.m. on 12.4.1992 and 3 p.m. on 13.4.1992 as 
F 
only liquified substance was found in the stomach; The eyewitnesses 
PWs 2 and 3 were related witnesses; non-examination of 'V' and the 
eye-witnesses has not been explained. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. High Court does not ordinarily set aside a judgment 
of acquittal in case where two views are possible, although, the view 
of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. It is, however, true that 
the High Court, while dealing with judgment of acquittal, is free to 
consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as 
H 
to whether the views of the Trial Judge is perverse or otherwise bad 
BUDH SINGH v. STA TE 
717 
.in law. The appellate c

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