LexHABIB versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 5 S.C.R. 476 HABIB v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 911 of 2007 etc.) MAY 1, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Prosecution of 3 accused - Acquittal by trial court - High Court convicting 2 of the C accused- and upholding acquitted of one - Appeal by the convicted accused - Held: Prosecution case is supported by evidence of eye-witnesses and medical evidence - Conviction upheld. 0 Administrationof Criminal Justice - If two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt and other to the innocence, view favourable to the accused to be adopted. E Motive - Evidentiary value - Held: Motive loses its significance in case of direct trust-worthy evidence. Witness - Interested witness - Evidentiary value - A witness, if trustworthy, cannot be discarded merely because, it is interested. Appeal - Appeal -against acquittal - Held: In such appeal, F appellate court is required to re-appreciate the evidence. The Appellants-accused 'H' and 'M' alongwith another accused were prosecuted for murder. As per prosecution, there were eye-witnesses to the incident. G Trial court acquitted all the accused. In appeal, High Court maintained the acquittal of one accused, but setting aside the acquittal of appellants-accused, convicted accused 'H' u/s 302 IPC and convicted accused 'M' u/s 302/34 IPC. Hence, the present appeals. H 476 HABIB v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 477 Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, including the medical evidence of PW6 and rightly came to the conclusion that A the trial court had committed an error in discarding their B evidence. [Para 10) [483-B] 2. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence on record if the court finds that the view of the trial court acquitting the accused was unreasonable or perverse. The golden C thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be D adopted. However, the paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. [Para 10] [483-B-D] State of Punjab vs. Ajaib Singh and Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 94; V.N.Ratheesh v. State of Kera/a (2006) 10 SCC 617: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 314 - relied on 3. If there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to the commission of offence, motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the occurrence is proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. [Para 6] [481-F-G] Sheo Shanker Singh vs. State of Jharkhand (2011) 3 SCC 654: 2011(4) SCR 312; Bipin Kumar Monda/ vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 12 SCC 91: 2010 (8) SCR 1036 - relied on. E F G H 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A 4. The mechanical rejection of the evidence on the sole ground that it is interested, would invariably lead to the failure of justice. The mere fact that PW1 and PW2 are interested witnesses, being relatives, is not a reason to discard their evidence, if the evidence is trustworthy. B Both, PW 1 and PW 2 have, categorically stated that the first shot was fired by appellant-accused 'M' but missed his aim and it was appellant-accused 'H' who fired the fateful shot at the neck of the deceased and thereafter three culprits ran away from the spot. Prosecution also c placed reliance on the testimony of PW 3, who was a co- villager of the informant and he fully corroborated the testimony of other witnesses regarding the part played by the three accused persons in the commission of crime. Nothing could be brought out in the corss- D examination of PW1, PW2, PW3 to discredit their statement. [Paras 7, 8] [482-A-E] Brathi vs. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 519: 1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 503; State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. S. Mohan Singh and Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 272; Shyama/ Ghosh E vs. State of West Bengal (2012) 7 SCC 646: 2012 (10) SCR 95 - relied on. Case Law Reference 2011 (4) SCR 312 relied on Para 6 F 2010 (8 ) SCR 1036 relied on Para 6 1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 503 relied on Para 8 (2006) 9 sec 212 relied on Pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.