KHEM KARAN AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 08-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
KHEM KARAN AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER 
April 8, 1974. 
863 
(M .. H. BEG, Y. V. CllANDRACHUD·AND V .• R .. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.J 
Code of Criminal Pr'Ocedure, 1908-A.ppeal against acqui1tal-Propriety oft 
Court of Appeal convicting sQme of the acquit1ed persons-Group clash-Scope 
of High CC?_url's power to re-evaluate evidence-Foundation for acquittal is re-
mov~ by otherwise credi'ble testimony. 
In a background of bitter hclstility, there was a confrontation and exchange 
of violence between the comp1ainants' group and that of all the ~ccused-appel­
lants. Several. on the prosecution side sustained gunshot wounds, although not 
fatal, while the three accused-appellants received lathi blow injuries. The com.;.. 
plainatit'.s plea was· that when attacked by guns, he and his men went at them~ 
di'sarD;Ied . them and beat them with lathis. Twenty-three accused stood trial. 
The trial court disbelieved the defence version out. found that the prosecution 
testimony too partisan, and consequently acquitted everyone. The High Court 
maintained the acquittal of all but the three appellants-accused. In respect of 
the latter, it found tht1.t the injuries on the persons of the three appe1la·nts and 
the fact that one of them had a gun in his hands at the time of the occurrence. 
were sufficient, together with the Qt her eVi~enCe to hold them guilty. 
On appeal 
by special leave to this Court by the said three appellants, 
HELD: (1) The principle of law is well established that merely b:cause a 
diffcrept view of the evidence is possible, you cannot cancel a finding against guilt 
Dot the appellate Court is· untrammelled in its power to re-evaluate the eviden~ 
bearing in minQ the seriousness of overthrowing an acquittal once recorded. In. 
that view we cannot find any error of 'aw in th~ High Court reconsidering ¢he 
probative value· of the oral and circumstantial evidence in the case. 
Nor are 
we persuaded to think that the a!')pellate Court has failed to observe. the built-in. 
-restraints on .exercise of rower while upsetting an acquittal. 
On the other hand~ 
the Court has made the correct approach that only those accused against whom 
there was additional probative rei_nforcement could be convicted. [864 G-865 BJ\ 
(II) Neither mere possibilities nor remote· pro
1babilities nor ·mere doubts 
which are not reasonable can, without danger to the administration. of justice,. 
be the foundation of the acquittal of an accused person, if there is Qt[herwise 
fairly credible testimony. 
If a trial Courts~ judgment v~rges on the perverse, 
the appellate Court has a duty to set the evaluation right and that is about all 
that has happened in this case. [865 E-F] 
(III) . The fact that a large numb:r of accused have been. acquitted and th:· 
remaining· who have been convicted are less than five cannot vitiat'! th~ con· 
viction under s. 149 read with the substantive offence if-as in this case the· 
Court has taken care to find-'-there· are other persons who might not have been· 
identified or convicted but were party· to the crime and together constituted the· 
statutory number. On this basis, the convktion under s. 307, .read with s. 149' 
has to be sust~ned. [866 A·B] 
· 
Sukh Ram v. State of U.P. A~I.R. 974, S.C. 323, referred to. 
Bharwad Mepa Dana v. State of Bombay. [1962) 2 S.C.R. 172. relied Oll. 
CRIMIN,AL AnELLATE JURISDICTION :-Criminal Appeal No. 40· 
of 1971. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment anrl Order dated· the 
21st September, 1970 of the Allahabad High. Court at Allahabad in 
Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 1967. 
12-LB4Sup. CI/75 
.. 
8 A4 
SUPREME COURT REl'ORTS 
[1974] 3 S.C.R. 
/\. L. Ko.'ili, for the appellant. 
0. l'. Rana; for respondent No. 1, · · 
·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:_ 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-This appeal by special leave, by three out of 
twenty three, who alone were convicted by the High Court in .reversal 
of a total aoquittal by the trial court, turns on the propriety of the 
Court of _Appeal convicting accused persons whose initial advantage 
of a presumption of innocence has been strengthened by a judicial 
affir.mation at the first level. 
The !ew facts are these. Two groups-the complainants' and the 
accused's-have been on terms of bitter hostility-a background mate· 
rial ,\~hich has kgitimately induced both the courts to be very scepti-
cal about the veracity of the prosecution witnesses in the absence 
of unlying corroborat10n. 
As foun

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