LexJAGDISH MURAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JAG DISH MURA V A v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. AUGUST 24, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-Attempt to murder-By firing gunshot at neck-Acquittal by Trial Court-Set aside by High Court in appeal- Challenge tcr-Held: High Court failed to analyze evidence on record and C passed judgment on mere surmises and conjectures-It did not critically scrutinize the evidence of P Ws which were full of contradictions-lilvestigation was conducted in a slip shod manner with no independent witness examined- No gun was seized nor any cartridge found at the place of occurrence- Further, there was enmity between the parties and FIR was ante-dated and ante-time~Jn such circumstances, false implication not ruled out-Accused D entitled to benefit of doubt-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 157-Police Act-Section 147. According to prosecution, upon alleged exhortation of the other accused, Appellant fired a shot at the neck of PW-2 with a country made pistol. He was prosecuted under Section 307 IPC for making attempt to murder. Trial Court upon finding the presence of PW-I and the veracity of the story as disclosed by PW-2 doubtful, besides finding motive for commission of the offence not established and the First Information Report ante-dated and ante-timed, acquitted the Appellant. On appeal by the State, High Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and set aside the acquittal. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court E F HELD: 1.1. The High Court failed to consider that it was dealing with a G judgment of acquittal. It failed to address itself the right question, viz., if two views are possible, the appellate court shall not interfere with a judgment of acquittal. The High Court evidently in its judgment failed to take into consideration several relevant factors as was done by the Trial Court. The 219 H 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A High Court also failed to consider that the statements of PWs I and 2 were disbelieved in relation to three other accused persons. No gun was seized. No cartridge was found at the place of occurrence. The enmity between the parties was admitted. The First Information Report was evidently ante-timed as it could not have been sent to the Circle Officer after four days and to the Court of B the Magistrate after eight days. [225-G-H; 226-A, B] 1.2. Investigation of the case was conducted by PW-4 in a slip-shod manner. PW-4 did not explain as to why the original general diary was not produced. In terms of the Police Act, a 1:opy of the statement of the First Information Report is required to be handed over to the informant. First C Information Report was required to be taken down in the general diary. Production of the general diary was necessary as the First Information Report was said to be ante-timed and ante-dated. The Trial Judge categorically opined the same to be so. No explanation has been given as to why the independent witnesses whose statements had allegedly been recorded were not examined. There was no reason as to why the statement of PW-2 was taken after such D a long time although according to the medical report he was not unconscious as would be evident from the fact that his left thumb impression was taken in the hospital register. If PW-2 was taken within a few minutes to the District Hospital, the doctor incharge must have informed the police. The Investigating Officer does not say so. He had not made any attempt to apprehend the culprits E immediately. There is absolutely no reason as to why in a case of grave nature, a copy of the First Information Report was sent to the Circle Officer, 4 days after the incident and to the court 8 days thereafter. Section 157 CrPC mandates that the First Information Report should be sent to the nearest Magistrate within a period of24 hours. The incident took place at Gorakhpur which is a District Town. Section 147 of the Police Act and the Rules framed F thereunder provide for safeguards for the accused persons from false implication. The legal requirements were not 1:omplied with. [226-C-Ff 1.3. The High Court failed to analyse the evidences on record. It proceeded to pass its judgment on mere surmises and conjectures. The High Court did not critically scrutinize the evidence of PWs I and 2. Having regard G to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt. It is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.