MUNNA LAL versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 24-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 224
224
MUNNA LAL
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2017)
JANUARY 24, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 374(2) –Appeal from
convictions – Murder of the complainant’s father – Previous enmity
between the parties – On the fateful day, the appellants armed with
weapons inflicted gun shot injuries and blows to the victim resulting
in his death – FIR against the appellants – Surviving appellants
convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Upheld
by the High Court – On appeal, held : PW-2 being inimical to the
appellants, his testimony to be taken carefully – PW-3 was at the
best, a chance witness – Circumstances on record do not justify the
presence of PW-3 at the place of occurrence – Oral testimony of
PW-2 and PW-3, the so-called eye witness, not free from doubt and
their evidence not of unimpeachable quality – Rule of prudence
demands corroboration of their versions from other witnesses present
at the place of occurrence and witnessed the murder of the victim,
however, they were not examined – Moreover, non-examination of
the investigating officer created reasonable doubt in the prosecution
case – On proper evaluation, it has transpired that there were
reasons for which PW-2 might have falsely implicated the appellants
and also that PW-3 was not a wholly reliable witness – There is a
fair degree of uncertainty in the prosecution story and the courts
below appear to have somewhat been influenced by the oral
testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, without taking into consideration the
effect of the other attending circumstances, thereby warranting
interference – Charge that the appellants had murdered the victim,
not proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitled to benefit of
doubt – Order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts
below set aside – Evidence Act, 1872.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 By reason of the uncontroverted evidence of a
continued enmity existing from 10 (ten) years preceding the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
225
alleged murder of the victim by and between the two groups, it
could be established that PW-2 nurtured personal ill–will towards
the appellants and the possibility of PW-2 having acted with
intention to keep the appellants away from legal proceedings as
well as interference in property rights cannot be totally ruled
out; hence, PW-2 being inimical to the appellants, his testimony
has to be taken with a pinch of salt and a deeper scrutiny of the
other evidence on record is also indeed called for. [Para 31][238-
D-F]
1.2. Having found from the oral evidence of PW-2 what
transpired on the fateful morning, it is considered necessary to
look into the oral testimony of PW-3. There was indeed an attempt
on the part of the appellants to establish that PW-3 was a relative
of PW-2 and that being an interested witness apart from a ‘chance
witness’, his testimony is not wholly reliable. It is not clear from
the testimony of PW-3 as to why, so early in the morning, he had
the occasion to pass by the place of occurrence. It is found that
PW-3 is a resident of place N whereas PW-2 happened to be a
resident of place S. The distance between the two places is 1–2
miles. The incident of murder happened within the jurisdictional
limits of Police Station T. It has not surfaced from the evidence of
PW-3 very early from where he started and where he was headed
for. ‘GD’ could be the village, where the matrimonial home of the
sister of PW-3 is; but for what purpose he had left is not too clear.
It was not said by PW-3 that he was on his way to his sister’s
residence. In cross–examination, PW-3 denied having resided in
place S. [Para 32][238-F-H; 239-A-B]
1.3. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt, some more particulars were required given
the circumstance that PW-3 was at best a ‘chance witness’.
Incidentally, PW-2 had denied being related to PW-3 and it was
not elicited by the prosecution from PW-2 as to how he came to
know the name of PW-3, given the fact that the latter was a
resident of a different village. Similarly, PW-3 too did not say that
he knew PW-2 or his father from before. The nature of
acquaintance that PW-2 and PW-3 had, ought to have been
brought out by the prosecution. That apart, although it is true
that PW-3 gave a vivid description of how N was shot by ML, no
MUNNA LAL v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C

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