JAI PRAKASH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 28-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
JAI PRAKASH
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1790-1791 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 28, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 :
ss. 302 and 120B  – Prosecution under – Conviction of three
of the four accused by trial court, relying on two eye-witnesses – In
appeal, High Court acquitted all the accused –  Appeal to Supreme
Court – Held : There are material inconsistencies in the version of
eye-witnesses – There is also discrepancy between the medical
evidence and oral evidence –  There are material lapses in the
investigation –  Such discrepancies raise serious doubt about the
prosecution case – Accused were rightly acquitted by High Court.
Constitution of India :
Art. 136 – Jurisdiction under –  Scope of – Held : In exercise
of power u/Art. 136, the Court would not ordinarily interfere with
the findings of High Court unless it is satisfied that such a finding
is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the appraisement of evidence
or such finding is perverse or arbitrary.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  As per the complaint/FIR and also the statement
of PW-1, after his morning walk and after relieving himself while
he was coming back home, he saw the respondents-accused
Nos.1, 2 and 4 sitting in the flour mill of accused No.3 with arms
in their possession. Case of the prosecution is that there was
previous enmity between the family of appellant and accused No.2
which was the cause of murder of the deceased.  When that being
the motive and if the accused were so found armed with weapons
in the flour mill of accused No. 3, the question arises as to why
the appellant sent his brother-deceased to purchase gutkha from
the shop. This has not been explained by the appellant.
[Para 15][1066-E-F]
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1056
  1056
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
2.   If the accused were looking for vengeance from brother
of the complainant (PW1) and the deceased, why the respondents-
accused allowed the complainant (PW1) to let go unharmed; more
so, when PW-1 was normally in the habit of going for morning
walk.  If the motive for the crime is accepted, then all the brothers
would be targets; but here attack was on only the deceased
brother and PW-1 was spared although attackers were fully armed
and near the place of occurrence.  Case of the prosecution does
not appear to be natural that the respondents-accused Nos.1, 2
and 4 have attacked the deceased who happened to pass through
the flour mill by chance after purchase of gutkha. [Para 16]
[1067-B-C]
3. PW-3 stated that on the date of occurrence, he along
with another person had gone to the house of complainant (PW-
1) to discuss about the electric decoration work for the marriage
ceremony of daughter of someone in their mohalla.  Admittedly,
the deceased was the electrician by profession who was to attend
to the electric work and the decoration.  It is not explained as to
why the deceased who was to attend to the electric work and the
decoration work, instead of discussing the need of the prospective
clients i.e. PW-3, would go out to purchase gutkha.  Curiously,
the person (the actual client)  did not accompany PW-3 and the
other person to the house of the deceased for discussion.  This
raises serious doubts about the presence of PW-3 in the scene of
occurrence and the case of the prosecution. [Para 17]
[1067-D-F]
4.   As per the deposition of PW-1, there was a goomty from
which gutka could be purchased, at a distance of just fifteen steps
from the house of the appellant and the shop from where the
deceased  had gone to buy the gutkha was at a distance of about
150-200 steps; again said 100-125 steps from the house of the
appellant. It has nowhere been stated when the deceased could
not have gotten gutkha right near his house and why should he
go to a shop at some distance away from the house.  PW-1 firstly
stated that he gave money to the deceased going to purchase
gutkha, however subsequently, he stated that in the shop credit
account was maintained. The reason stated for deceased going
at a little bit far away place to purchase gutkha leaving his
JAI PRAKASH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
prospective clients for decoration of electric work is not quite
convincing. [Para 18] [1067-G-H; 1068-A]
5.   The High Court observed that PW-3 was a chance witness
and expressed doubts about the presence of PW-3 in the scene
of 

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