KHEMA @ KHEM CHANDRA ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 21 · Decided: 10-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
KHEMA @ KHEM CHANDRA ETC.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1200-1202 of 2022)
AUGUST 10, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Criminal Trial: Evidence – Appreciation of – Discrepancies
and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses –
Effect of – On facts, the appellant-accused persons armed with
various weapons assaulted the victim, and also fired gun shots,
resulting in his death – Victim was accompanied by his brother, his
sister, his wife and PW-2 – When they all came forward to save
victim’s life, they were also assaulted and in the assault PW-2 sufferred
gunshot injury – Conviction and sentence of the appellants for
offences punishable u/s. 302/149, s. 307/149 and s.148 IPC by the
courts below, on basis of the testimonies of an eye witness and an
injured witness, which were corroborated from the recoveries made
on the basis of memorandum of the accused – On appeal, held:
Trial court and the High Court failed to take into consideration the
vital discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses – From the perusal of the evidence as well as
the findings of the trial court itself, it is clear that PW-1 cannot be
said to be an eye witness – Though, PW-2 is an injured eye-witness,
there are serious discrepancies and inconsistencies with regard to
time of the injuries sustained and time of medical examination –
Concerned doctor in his evidence, changed his stance on several
occasions, his testimony totally contrary to that of both the
prosecution witness – As such the possibility of some fabrication in
the injury certificate cannot be rejected – Furthermore, not safe to
base the conviction on the sole testimony of the injured witness –
Corroboration sought by the prosecution with regard to alleged
recoveries of the weapons used in the crime also not free from doubt
– Neither the station diary entry with regard to telephonic intimation
given by the informant brought on record nor informant was
examined – Though independent witnesses were available, the
prosecution has failed to examine them – As such the possibility of
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 21
21
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
the prosecution not bringing on record the real genesis of the incident
cannot be ruled out – In view thereof, the appellants entitled for
benefit of doubt – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/149, s. 307/149 and
s.148.
Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Concurrent findings of fact
– Interference with – Reappreciation of evidence – When – Held:
Though in cases of concurrent findings of fact this Court would not
ordinarily interfere with the said findings, in exceptional
circumstances, this Court is empowered to do so – If this Court
finds that the appreciation of evidence and findings is vitiated by
any error of law or procedure or found contrary to the principles
of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence,
or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse,
this Court has power to reappreciate the evidence. 
Jarnail Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (2009) 9
SCC 719 : [2009] 13 SCR 774; Abdul Sayeed v. State
of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259 : [2010] 13
SCR 311; Smt. Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of
Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280;
Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh (2005) 10 SCC 498;
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] SCR 981;
Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash
(1972) 1 SCC 249 : [1972] 2 SCR 765; Arunachalam
v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Another (1979) 2 SCC 297
: [1979] 3 SCR 482; Mithilesh Kumari and Another v.
Prem Behari Khare (1989) 2 SCC 95 : [1989] 1 SCR
621; State of U.P. v. Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29 :
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 598; Pattakkal Kunhikoya (Dead)
By LRs. v. Thoopiyakkal Koya and Another (2000) 2
SCC 185 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 371; Ashoksinh
Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2019) 6 SCC 535 :
[2019] 7 SCR 309 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 13 SCR 774
referred to
Para 8
[2010] 13 SCR 311
referred to
Para 8
[1977] 1 SCR 280
referred to
Para 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
23
[1972] 2 SCR 765
referred to
Para 26
[1979] 3 SCR 482
referred to
Para 26
[1989] 1 SCR 621
referred to
Para 26
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 598
referred to
Para 26
[1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 371
referred to
Para 26
[2019] 7 SCR 309
referred to
Para 27
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1200-1202 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019 of the High Court
of Judicatur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.