LexNAIN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- • NAIN SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH FEBRUARY 22, 1991 A [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] B Constitution of India,· 1950---Article 136--Special Leave Petition -Criminal matters-Appeal arising from concurrent finding of fact- Scope of interference. On 23.12.1976 at about 1 p.m. when Bali (deceased) along with C PWs 1 and 5 was in bis field, the four appellants each armed with a Lathi, along with Braham Singh armed with a 'Ballam', came there. On the exhortation of Chandroo, all other appellants and Braham Singh attacked Bali with their respective weapons and caused injuries to him. While PW-3 tried to save her husband, she too was injured. When PW-1 along with PWs 3 and 4 rushed to the scene of occurrence, the D assailants took to their heels. Injured Bali was removed to the hospital. He succumbed to his injuries on the same day at about 7 .45 p.m. It seems that there was strained relationship between the appel- lants and the deceased for a considerable length of time over grazing of ~ cattle, resulting in damage to the standing crops. On account of this, E there was simmering feeling between the parties. Added to that, there were certain criminal prosecutions between the parties, pending for over a period of two years. · The four appellants along with Braham Singh (since acquitted by the Triai Court) took their trial. The Trial Court found the four appel- F lants guilty of offences under section 302 read with section 34 and under section 323 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to six months' rigorous imprisonment respec- tively. The 5th accused, Braham Singh, was acquitted. On appeal, the High Court held that the prosecution had not G made out a case punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC but only under section 304, Part II, IPC read with section 34 IPC. The High Court sentence each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The conviction of all the appellants under section 323 read with 149 IPC was altered into one under section 323 read with 34 IPC and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprison- H ment was retained. 685 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R. A Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that ~- since both the courts below had overlooked the glaring inf"mnities and ignored the material evidence supporting the defence theory as well as the manifest errors appeaiing in the evidence, this Court would be justified in interfering with the concurrent imdings of both the courts. B According to the learned counsel, the prosecution had shifted the scene of occurrence, changed the time of occurrence, unduly delayed the registration of the case and put forth a false explanation for its tardiness both in the matter of registration and investigation of the case. - ~ - c Allowing the appeals by setting aside the convictions and the sen- tence imposed by the High Court, this Court, HELD: (1) Under Article 136, Interference by the Supreme Court will be called for even with the f"mdings of fact given by the High Court, if the High Court bas acted perversely or otherwise improperly. [.690F] The State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, [1958] S.C.R. 580; D Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, [1972] l S.C.C. 249; Balak Ram v. State of U.P., [1975] 3 S.C.C. 219; Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhananthan, [1979] 3 S.C.R. 402; State of U.P. v. Hamit Singh & Ors., [1990] 3 S.C.C. 55; State of U.P. v. Pheru Singh & Ors., [1989] Suppl. 1 S.C.C. 288, referred to. E F G H (2) The evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short or the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it. [697H] (3) A thorough and scrupulous examination of the facts and the circumstances of the case leads to an irresistible and inescapable conclu- sion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against these appellants by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. Both the Courts below instead of dealing with the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the witnesses, have acted perversely by summarily disposing of the case, pretermitting the manifest errors and glaring inf'mnities appearing in the case. [698A-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 251 & 307of1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1989 of the Allahabad High C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.