DHARAMVEER AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 162 · Decided: 09-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 162 
DHARAMVEER AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2004) 
MARCH 09, 2010 
fHARJIT SINGH BEDI, C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.148, 3021149 and 3071149 -
Prosecution under - Eye-witnesses to the incident -
c Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: Conviction 
justified - Delay in despatch of the FIR, enmity between the 
parties and non-examination of one of the witnesses are not 
fatal to prosecution case. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Jurisdiction 
D under - Scope of - Power under Article 136 is very wide -
Supreme Cqurt can re-appraise the evidence and set aside 
concurrent fi.nding of fact - However, appreciation of evidence 
is resorted to, in exceptional circumstances - Where the High 
Court has analysed the evidence in great detail and found the 
E evidence reliable, there is no scope for interference. 
Appellants-accused were prosecuted for having 
killed two persons. Trial court, relying on the evidence of 
Medical Officer, the post-mortem reports, and the 
F evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 (the eye-witnesses), held that 
the prosecution has been able to prove its ~ase beyond 
all reasonable doubt and accordingly co'nvicted the. 
accused for offence ulss.148, 3021149 and 307/149 IPC. 
The conviction order was confrmed by the High Court. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Power under Article 136 of the Constitution 
is very wide and nothing prevents Supreme Court to re-
appraise the evidence and set aside concurrent finding 
H 
162 
DHARAMVEER AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 
163 
of fact holding the accused guilty. However, appreciation 
A 
of evidence is resorted to, in exceptional circumstances 
when it comes to the conclusion that the finding of guilt 
recorded by the High Court is perverse, meaning thereby 
the High Court had recorded the finding without 
consideration of relevant material or consideration of B 
irrelevant material, the consideration or non-
consideration whereof shall have bearing on the finding 
recorded. The finding can also be considered perverse, 
if a person duly instructed in law will not come to that 
finding. Supreme Court may also interfere with the finding c 
of fact when it finds violation of established procedure 
going to the root of the case. Where the High Court has 
analysed the evidence in great detail and found the 
evidence reliable there is no scope for interference by this 
Court. [Para 9) [168-G-H; 169-A-C] 
o 
Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar (2005) 6 
sec 211, relied on. 
Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and Ors. vs. State of 
Gujarat (2000) 1 SCC 358, referred to. 
2.1. The case of the prosecution cannot be rejected 
merely on the ground that there was delay in despatch 
of the First Information Report. There does not seem any 
delay in lodging the First Information Report. Not only 
this, after the First Information Report was lodged, 
investigation proceeded, the statement of the witnesses 
recorded, the inquest report prepared and the dead 
bodies sent for post-mortem examination without delay. 
E 
F 
It is also on record that the Special Report was sent by 
post. In the background of the aforesaid facts, mere delay 
G 
in receipt of the Special Report, in no way causes doubt 
to the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, none of the 
witnesses including the investigating officer of the case 
have been cross-examined on this point. [Para 13} [171-
H; 172-A-D] 
H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
UNK. Meharaj Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh JT 1994 
(3) SC 440; Pala Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab 1972 
(2) sec 640, referred to. 
2.2. The evidence of an eye-witness cannot be 
8 rejected only on the ground that enmity exists between 
the parties. [Para 15] [173-A] 
2.3. True it is that 'R' could have been an important 
witness to unfold the true story but his non-examination 
itself is not sufficient to discard the case of the 
c prosecution. It has come in evidence of PW.1 that later 
on prosecution suspected that he was accomplice in the 
crime. Hence, his non-examination has been explained. 
Not only this, the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, with 
minor contradictions has withstood the test of cross-
D examination and therefore the case of the prosecution is 
not fit to be thrown out on these grounds. [Para 16] [173-
D-E] 
2.4 Why the appellants did not cause any injury to 
the witnesses cannot be explained by the prosecution. 
· E It w

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