LexCHETRAM versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 4 S.C.R. 70 CHETRAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2014) MARCH 04, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder - Two accused - One of them stabbed the victim resulting into his death - Conviction by courts below of both - Plea of appellant that no role was attributed to him in the crime - Held: No role was assigned to appellant in FIR or in statement u/s 161 by solitary eye- D witness - His testimony before court stating that appellant caught hold of victim is an improvement over his statement in FIR and uls 161 CrPC - This creates a suspicion about overt act attributed to appellant - His involvement in the incident remains doubtful - Accordingly, appellant is entitled E to benefit of doubt and, as such, acquitted. The appellant along with another was prosecuted for the murder of the brother of PW-1. In the written report, PW-1 stated that when the deceased was selling guavas on the roadside, A-1 and A-21appellant reached there. A- F 1 stabbed the deceased and thereafter both of them fled away. PW-3 and PW-4 saw both the accused fleeing from the scene. The trial court convicted and sentenced both the accused u/s 302/34 IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. G In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appellant that as the deposition of sole eye-witness, PW- 1, in court was an improvement upon the information recorded in FIR and his statement made u/s 161 CrPC 70 CHETRAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 71 wherein he attributed no role to appellant, his conviction A was liable to be set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 PW2 and PW3 have not seen the occurrence but have witnessed accused persons fleeing away after the occurrence. Therefore, the solitary eye- witness to the occurrence is PW1 and his testimony in court is an improvement on the version given by him in B the FIR in which he has not attributed any overt act to accused No.2 in the attack made on the deceased during C the occurrence. Further, no role was assigned to accused no. 2 by PW1 in his statement given u/s 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigation Officer. For the first time in his deposition before the court he has come out with the version that accused N~.2 caught hold of the deceased D while the attack was made by accused No.1 on him during the occurrence. Thus, there is a lurking suspicion so far as the overt act of accused No.2 is concerned. It is difficult to place any reliance on the testimony of PW1 as regards the involvement of the appellant in the E incident. [para 11] [75-G-H; 76-A-C] - Ani/ Prakash Shukla vs. Arvind Shukla 2007 (5) SCR 1053 = (2007) 9 SCC 513; ldrish Bhai Daudbhai vs. State of Gujarat 2005 (1) SCR 885 = (2005) 3 SCC 277; and Baital F Singh v. State of U.P. (1990 Crl. L.J. 2091) - relied on. 1.2 Though the prosecution, by adducing medical evidence, has established that the deceased died of homicidal violence, the involvement of the appellant in the said incident remains doubtful and the benefit of doubt G has to· be given to him in the circumstances. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant- accused No.2 are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. [para 13-14] [76-E-F] H A B 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. Case Law Reference: 2007 (5) SCR 1053 2005 (1) SCR 885 relied on relied on para 11 para 11 1990 Crl. L.J. 2091 relied on para 11 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2013 of the High"Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. C 176 of 2010. D Kamini Jaiswal, Shilpi Dey, Krishna Tiwari for the Appellant. Abhishek Atrey, Babita Tyagi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the E High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2010. 3. The present appellant was appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2010 and he along with appellant No.1 therein Ganga Ram, was tried in Sessions Trial No.1 of 2008 F on the file of Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal for the alleged offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and they were found guilty of the charge and convicted and sentenced each to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default to under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.