DILA AND ANR. versus STATE OF UP

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 20-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.~ 
DILA AND ANR. 
STATE OF U.P. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2002. 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND 
ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penai Code, 1860-Seciion 302 read with 149-0rder of acquittal-
Interference by High Court-Correctness of-Held, High Court was justified C 
In reversing acquittal order as it has properly analysed and reappreciated 
the evidence keeping in view the probabilities of the case. 
According to the prosecution a person bought a piece of land and 
appellant No. I disputed his possession. A day prior to the incident there was 
an altercation and appellant No.I threatened him. Next day appellants and three D 
other co-accused accompanied by four others went to the scene of occurrence 
armed with weapons. It was alleged that appellant No.I exhorted his son-
appellant No.2 to kill the buyer of the land. Appellant No.2 fired shot causing 
injury to the buyer which later on resulted in his death. It was also alleged 
that other accused assaulted prosecution witnesses I to 3 causing injuries to E 
them. Appellants and three other co-accused were tried for offences under 
sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 IPC. Trial 
Court acquitted all the accused. High Court acquitted the three co-accused 
but reversed acquittal of appellants and convicted them under section 302 read 
with Section 149 IPC. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Appellants contended that High Court was in error in reversing 
acquittal order of trial court based on proper appreciation of evidence and 
supported by reasons, on mere possibility of taking a contrary view; that the 
appellants could not be convicted on the basis of the same prosecution story 
which could not be proved against the three co-accused particularly so when G 
four unknown persons were also involved in the incident; and that since 
appellant No. I is more than 80 years old his case should be considered 
sympathetically. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
521 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: I. High Court on proper analysis and objective reappreciation 
of evidence, keeping in view probabilities of the case, was right and justified 
in reversing the acquittal order. It is not a case where High Court interfered 
merely because it could take a different l'iew but has shown how the reasons 
recorded by trial court for acquittal were wrong and the view taken was not a 
B reasonable view and was opposed to weight of evidence. Thus, there is no reason 
or ground to interfere with the order of the High Court.1527-F, GI 
2.1. It is not in dispute that the deceased succumbed to the injuries 
caused during the occurrence. As per the doctor's version, the deceased 
received one gun shot injury on the chest and two minor !ncised wounds on 
C his head. Prosecution witnesses 1 to 3 also received number of injuries which 
could have been caused by some blunt weapon. (524-H; 525-A, Bl 
2.2. Prosecution witnesses 1 to 3 supported the case of the prosecution 
as to the mode and manner of occurrence and the persons who participated in 
the commission of these offences. The presence of PWl to 3 at the place of 
D occurrence could not be ruled out. 1525-B-q 
2.3. The prosecution witnesses stated about the availability of light of 
burning of lantern as well as the torches possessed by the two witnesses. 
Investigating Officer examined the lantern and marked the place where it 
E was hanging and also examined torches and prepared memos. High Court 
having regard to the evidence placed on record did not agree with Trial Court 
that the presence of light at the scene was doubtful. High Court rightly 
observed that trial court ought not to have disbelieved the evidence merely on 
the ground that the two witnesses were not injured, as it was not necessary 
that every one of the witnesses should have been injured. 
F 
1525-E; 526-C-El 
2.4. The prosecution witnesses deposed about the motive for the crime 
which was clearly established as there were several litigations between the 
parties. In such circumstances, High Court found that trial court was wrong 
G in recording a finding that motive aspect was not proved and that appellant 
No.1 was not aggrieved with the deceased or that the accused persons had 
been named merely on the ground of suspicion. 
3. Respondent-State will consider the case of appellant No.1 
sympathetically as and when an application is made by him for commutation 
H of sentence having regard to the relevant rules, keeping in view h

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