MD.ALL @ GUDDU versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 416 · Decided: 10-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
" 
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 416 
MD.ALl@GUDDU 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2238 OF 2010) 
MARCH 10, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Penal code, 1860-ss. 363, 366 and 376- Conviction 
under, by courts below- On appeal, held: The accused were 
convicted without proper appreciation of evidence - In view 
of the unexplained delay in lodging FIR, non-examination of 
D witness, the associated circumstances and the medical 
evidence, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be treated 
as so natural and truthful to inspire confidence - The accused 
were erroneously convicted. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Criminal 
appeal by special leave - Scope of- Held: In such appeal, 
Supreme Court normally does not appreciate evidence and 
go into the question of credibility of witness, except where 
the conclusions recorded by High Court are manifestly 
F perverse and unsupportable by the evidence on record. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In an appeal under Article 136 of the 
G Constitution, this Court does not normally appreciate the 
evidence by itself and go into the question of credibility 
of witness. The assessment of the evidence by the High 
Court is accepted as final, except where the conclusions 
recorded by the High Court are manifestly perverse and 
H unsupportable by the evidence on record. [Para 15] (427-
416 
MD. ALl@GUDDU v. STATE OF U. P. 
417 
F-H; 428-A] 
A 
Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Saqhanatha and Anr. 1979 (3) 
SCR 482: (1979) 2 SCC 297; State of U.P. v. Babu/ 
Nath 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 598: (1994) 6 sec 29; 
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar Ganga 
B 
Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211; 
Alamelu and Another v. State, represented by Inspector 
of Police 2011 (2) SCR 147: (2011) 2 SCC 385-relied 
on. 
2. The conclusions arrived at by the High Court 
in the present case are totally unsupportable on the basis 
c 
of the evidence on record. There is no proper 
appreciation of evidence by trial court and definitely the 
High Court has failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction D 
in proper perspective as is expected from it in law. [Paras 
16 and 17] [428-B]; [429-D-E] 
Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna v. State of Gujarat 2013 
(9) SCR 257: (2013) 15 SCC 263; Padam Singh v. 
State ofU.P. 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR59 = 
(2000) 1 
SCC 621; Rama v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 
571; Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek v. State of Gujarat 2012 
(8) SCR 1012 = (2012) 11SCC312; Padam Singh v. 
State of U.P. 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 59: (2000) 1 SCC 
621; Bani Singh v. State of U.P. 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 
247 : (1996) 4 SCC 720; Majjal v. State of Haryana 
(2013) 6 sec 798 - relied on. 
E 
F 
3. FIR was lodged almost after expiry of eleven G 
days alleging the factum of kidnapping by the accused 
persons. In rape cases, the delay in filing the FIR by the 
prosecutrix or by the parents in all circumstance is not 
of significance such delay would depend upon facts of H 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A each case, regard being had to the trauma suffered by 
the prosecutrix and various other factors. In the present 
case, the prosecutrix was missing from home. In such a 
situation, it was a normal expectation that either the 
mother (PW2) or the brother would have lodged a 
B missing report at the police station. The same was not 
done. This action of PW-2 really throws a great challenge 
to common sense. No explanation has been offered for 
such delay. In the absence of any explanation, it gives 
C rise to a sense of doubt. That apart, the factum that the 
appellant informed the mother of the victim that he had 
left the prosecutirx at the door of her house also does 
not command acceptance. The recovery of the 
prosecutrix by the brother and her friends also creates 
D a cloud of suspicion. Therefore, the prosecution version 
that one 'A' had informed the brother of the prosecutirx 
that his sister was at his place but for reasons best 
known to the prosecution, 'A' has not been examined. 
That apart, the persons who were accompanying the 
E brother have also not been examined by the 
prosecution. Thus, the manner of recovery of the 
prosecutrix from the house of 'fJ( remains a mystery. 
[Paras 16 and 20) [428-B-C, F-G; 432-D-G] 
F 
Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand 2013 (2) SCR 
411 : (2013) 3 sec 791- relied on. 
4. On the basis of the sole testimony of the 
prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable and beyond reproach, 
G a conviction can be based. The grammar of law permits 

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