MOHD. ASLAM ALIAS KUYIAN versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 18-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MOHD. ASLAM ALIAS KUYIAN 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
MARCH 18, 1993 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 37&-Appeal against ac-
quittaHnteiference by Appellate Court whet1. 
Penal Code, 1860 : Section 302-Conviction under, by High Court-
Appreciation of evidence by Supreme Court-High Court's finding whether 
justified-Evidences of eye-witnesses-Value of 
The prosecution case was that there was long standing enmity 
-4' 
D between appellant's father and one Khan on one side and the com-
plainant on the other, which rose out of rival claim in placing 'sawai' on 
the Akhara of Tajias. A Civil litigation was pending between the parties 
over the dispute. Criminal proceedings under section 107 read with 
section 117 of the Code ·or Criminal Procedure were also pending between 
them. 
E 
F 
The nephew and son-in-law of the complainant was doing pairvi of 
">--
the cases OD behalf Of the complainant and because Of that the father of 
the appellant and one Khan became inimical to the son-in-law of the 
complainant. 
At about 6.00 P.M. on the date of the occurrence namely 25.12.1975, 
the son-in-law .of the complainant was sitting on a wooden bench in front 
of a hair C\ltling shop of his village. One Umar and P.W.1 were also 
~. 
sitting wl'th him and all the three were talking. P.Ws. 2 and 3 and the 
complainant were standing near a Gumti, at a short distance and were 
G talking. 
At the time, the appellant armed with a double barrel gun came there. 
He challenged the complainant's son-in-law and threatened to kill anyone 
A 
who would come forward. He fired two shots which hit the complainant's 
H son-in-law add one Umar. Both of them fell down. Complainant's son-In-law 
444 
--~---.. --.~--~·'"' . 
MOHD.ASLAM v. STATE OF U.P. 
445 
died on the spot. P.W.10 took Umar to Hospital. 
A 
The Complainant went to his home and got a report of the occur-
rence written by P.W.4 and taking the report to the Police Station, abont 
4 miles away, he lodged the F.I.R at 7.15 P.M. Investigation of the case 
was immediately commenced. Umar died on 4.1.1976, prior to his death on 
1.1.1976, the Police had interrogated the deceased. 
B 
The case of accused - appellant was that he was falsely implicated 
on account of enmity and party faction. He denied all the allegations of the 
prosecution. 
The Sessions Court acquitted ihe accused-appellant, as it did not 
find the prosecution case and the evidence acceptable. 
Allowing the State's appeal against acquittal, the High Court con-
victed the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to im-
prisonment for life. 
In the appeal before this Court, the accused contended that the High 
Court did not appreciate the salutory principles governing the judgment 
of acquittal; that the Sessions Judge bad taken pains in analysing in detail . 
c 
D 
E 
the evidences adduced in the case and gave reasonings for each of the 
finding as to why the prosecution case could not be accepted and what 
were the intrinsic deficiency in the evidences adduced in the case in 
support of the prosecution; that the law was well settled that in a case of 
acquittal, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of 
acquittal if such-judgment was based on consideration of the evidences 
adduced in the case and there was no perversity in coming to the finding F 
for passing the judgment of acquittal and in such a case of acquittal, the 
High Court in exercise of its appellate power should not endeavour to 
appreciate the evidence on its own in order to come to different finding 
unlike in an appeal arising from the judgment of conviction; that it has 
been established convincingly that there was party faction between the two 
groups over a dispute to place Sawai on Tajias and both civil and criminal G 
proceedings were instituted between the two groups: that the eye-witnesses 
were in the faction of the complainant and they were partition witnesses; 
that the Sessions Judge, therefore, after nothing the various discrepancies 
in the prosecution case, was not inclined to place reliance on the evidences 
adduced by the alleged eye-witnesses and acquitted the accused/appellant; H 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A and that such order of acquittal, in the facts of the case and the reasons 
indicated by the Sessions Judge, was not required to be interfered with in 
appeal by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
B 
HELD: 1. In an 

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