LAKSHMI AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 29-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

LAKSHMI AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. 
AUGUST 29, 2002 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 3021149, 2011149, 147 and 148-Murder by 8 accused-
Evidence of eye witnesses-Trial court convicted 6 accused and acquitted 2 C 
accused-High Court convicted 4 of the 6 accused u/ss 302 and 201, convicted 
one of them u/s 201 and acquitted him u/s 302/149; acquitted one, of all the 
charges-Upheld the acquittal of the 2 accused-Cross appeals by accused 
and State-Held, in the facts and circumstances of the case all the 6 accused 
liable to be convicted-Acquittal of 2 of the 6 accused by High Court not D 
justified-Hence, judgment of High Court set aside and that of trial court 
1 restored 
Criminal trial: 
Non-identification of dead body, failure to establish cause of death and 
non-recovery of weapon of offence-Effect of-Held, a charge of murder muy E 
stand established even in their absence. 
Faulty investigation and padding in evidence-Effect of-Held, would 
by itself not lead to total demolition of prosecution case, if it can otherwise 
stand. 
For offences including the murder of two persons, eight accused 
including the appellants were put on trial. According to the prosecution, 
one 'I' son of accused 'R' was murdered in a different village, and the 
accused persons thought that the two deceased persons were responsible 
F 
for his murder. They also tol.d one of the accused that along with the body G 
of 'I' they would burn the bodies of his murderers. They invited the 
deceased persons to the funeral ground for the funeral ceremony of 'I'. 
There they shot them and then burnt their bodies in the funeral pyre of 
'I'. 4 accused were armed with deadly weapons while accused 'R' and 'D' 
were unarmed who had caught hold of one of the deceased when he was 
shot by one of the four accused. 
H 
733 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 were eyewitnesses to the incident. PWS was 
B 
independent witness. Names of 5 accused were specifically mentioned in 
FIR while accused 'D' was mentioned as brother-in-law of' I'. PW3 had 
deposed as to the involvement of other two accused in the incident. She 
also identified the body of one of the deceased. 
Trial court held that prosecution established the case against six 
accused and convicted them of the offences and sentenced them to life 
imprisonment. However, it acquitted other two accused disbelieving the 
evidence of PW3. 
C 
6 accused filed appeal before High Court against their conviction. 
State filed appeals against acquittal of the other two accused and for 
enhancement of sentence of accused 'BR', as he was life convict when he 
committed the offence. High Court convicted the four accused u/ss 302 
and 201, acquitted accused 'D' of all the charges giving him benefit of 
doubt and convicted accused 'R' u/s 201, and acquitted him u/s 302/149 
D and section 147. Acquittal of the other two accused was confirmed. Appeal 
for enhancement of sentence of accused 'BR' was dismissed. 
E 
F 
G 
Special Leave Petitions against acquittal of the other two accused, 
and refusal to enhance sentence of accused 'BR' were dismissed by this 
Court. 
Appeals were filed by the accused against their conviction and by 
the State against the acquittal of accused 'R' and 'D'. 
Appellant-accused contended that prosecution failed to prove its case 
beyond reasonable doubt as identification of dead bodies, recovery of 
weapons and cause of death were not established by prosecution; that 
evidence of PWl was doubtful; that evidence of PWS indicated that only 
accused 'BR' might have committed the offence and thus rest of the 
accused were falsely implicated; and that the investigation was doubtful. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A charge of murder may stand established against an 
accused even in absence of identification of body and cause of the death. 
Undoubtedly, the identification of the body, cause of death and recovery 
of weapon with which injury may have been inflicted on the deceased are 
H some of the important factors to be established by the prosecution in an 
·-
LAKSHMI v. STATE OF U.P. 
735 
ordinary given case to bring home the charge of offence under Section A 
302 IPC. This, however, is not an inflexible rule. It rnnnot be held as a 
general and broad proposition of law that where these aspects are not 
established, it would be fatal to the case of the prosecution and in all cases 
and eventualities, it o

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