GURU DUTT PATHAK versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 06-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
GURU DUTT PATHAK
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2015)
MAY 06, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302/34 – Four accused – Acquittal by
Trial Court – During pendency of State’s appeal before High Court,
accused no. 1 to 3 died – Reversal of acquittal of fourth accused
by High Court – Appeal against conviction – Held: Prosecution
witnesses fully supported the case of prosecution – It was established
and proved by prosecution by leading evidence that the incident
had taken place on the road near Primary Pathshala – The dead
body was recovered from the road near the Pathshala and blood
stained clothes were also recovered from that place – Thus
prosecution proved the place of incident as stated in the FIR – PW-
4 was eye-witness – He was found to be trustworthy and reliable –
In view of clinching evidence of eyewitnesses, mere non-examination
of some of the witnesses/independent witnesses and/or in absence
of examination of any independent witnesses would not be fatal to
prosecution case – Appellant-accused no. 4 was named right from
the beginning in the FIR – He was attributed specific role – The
same was established and proved from the evidence of PW-4 – In
the facts and circumstances of the case, and on re-appreciation of
the evidence, High Court came to conclusion that findings recorded
by trial court while acquitting the accused were perverse and even
contrary to the evidence on record and/or misreading of the evidence
– No reason to interfere with the order of High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Each and every ground on which trial court
acquitted the accused has been elaborately dealt with by the High
Court and on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record the
High Court specifically came to the conclusion that the findings
recorded by the trial Court were perverse and thereafter the
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 573
573
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
High Court interfered with the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court. The High Court rightly observed that
when there is a direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses and
the eyewitnesses are trustworthy and reliable, absence of motive
is insignificant. In the present case, in the 313 statement itself,
the appellant- original accused no.4 also stated that there was an
enmity. Therefore, even according to the accused also, there was
an enmity. [Paras 8 and 9][592-D-F]
Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2019) 8 SCC 529 :
[2019] 11 SCR 554; Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab
(2020) 2 SCC 563 : [2020] 1 SCR 307; Rizwan Khan
v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 9 SCC 627; State of
H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808 : [2018]
2 SCR 656 – relied on.
2.1 The prosecution witnesses fully supported the case of
the prosecution, more particularly PW2 & PW4 and they are found
to be trustworthy and reliable, non-examination of the
independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Nothing is on record that those two persons, as mentioned in the
FIR reached the spot were mentioned as witnesses in the
chargesheet. In any case, PW2 & PW4 fully supported the case
of the prosecution and therefore non-examination of the aforesaid
two persons shall not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. [Para
11][593-D-F]
Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 408 :
[ 2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 561; Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore
Kubersing Chamansing (2001) 6 SCC 145 – referred
to.
2.2 The investigating officer -PW7 in his examination-in-
chief specifically stated that when they tried to arrest the said
accused at 4:00 a.m. in the early morning near the bridge, the
said accused tried to run away; after scuffle he was arrested and
that during that scuffle and arrest, he sustained injuries. A
suggestion was put to him in the cross-examination that at the
time of arrest the accused ‘M’ did not receive any injury, however,
the same has been specifically denied that it is not true that he
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
575
did not receive injury at the time of his arrest. Similar suggestions
were made to other witnesses and the same were denied.
Therefore, as such, it cannot be said that the prosecution failed
to explain the injury on the said accused. Even the aforesaid
aspect was considered in detail by the High Court and the said
statement was appreciated by the High Court on re-appreciating
the entire evidence on record, more particularly the medical
evidence and even the 

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