PRAHLAD versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 27-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
PRAHLAD
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2043 of 2009)
JULY 27, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302,120B and 34 – Arms Act, 1959 –
ss.25,27 – Acquittal under – Prosecution case was that victim-
deceased had political enmity with three accused (A-1, A-2 and A-
3) – All three accused hatched a conspiracy to away with the victim
– Accused no.1 and accused no.2 had used motorcycle of accused
no.3 to arrive near a bus stand where a gun shot was fired at victim
from a short distance – Victim died – Charge-sheet filed – Trial
Court acquitted all the three accused – On appeal by the State, the
High Court relying upon recovery made and on basis of sole
testimony of PW2, affirmed the acquittal of A-3 but convicted the
other accused persons for the offences punishable under s.302/34
IPC – On appeal, by A-1 and A-2 – Held: Prosecution has not came
to the court with clean hands as the story is of prosecution is full of
inconsistencies – The prosecution witnesses are contradictory to
each other – Investigation was carried out in irregular manner –
Testimony of PW-2 was not of sterling quality thus conviction based
on his sole testimony is not tenable – There was no Panchnama on
record and recoveries made are inconsistent with the record, therefore
cannot be relied upon – Conviction set aside – Acquittal of A-1 and
A-2 by the trial Court affirmed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.The scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal is very limited. Unless the appellate court comes to a
finding that the view taken by the Sessions Judge is either
perverse or impossible, it will not be permissible to interfere
with the finding of acquittal. Equally, if two views are possible
and the appellate Court finds another view to be more probable,
it cannot interfere with the order of acquittal unless it finds that
the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is an impossible
view. [Para 12][88-D-E]
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 82
82
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
83
2. The prosecution has come out with three different
versions. As per the Postmortem requisition, it is the accused
No.3 who had shot the victim-deceased. As per the ocular
testimony of P.W.2, which is relied on by the High Court, it is the
accused No.1, sitting as pillion rider with accused No.2, who had
shot the deceased; and the third version as per the Roznamcha,
11 persons had caught deceased and accused No.1 had fired at
him with Katta. It is a case full of mysteries. According to P.W.2,
his statement was only recorded on 23rd June, 1991, which is
corroborated by P.W.16- Assistant Sub-Inspector, Harda. Whereas
according to P.W.17(the I.O.), the statements were recorded only
on 26th and 27th June, 1991. The Postmortem requisition states
that it is accused No.3, who had assaulted the deceased with Katta.
P.W.16 states that he is not aware as to where the statements
recorded by him on 23rd June, 1991 are kept. P.W.17 (the I.O.),
admits that Dehati Naalis was prepared by Thanedar Bharti.
However, the same was not produced with the case. He further
admitted that the statements of some of the witnesses were against
the prosecution and therefore the same have not been produced
in the Court. [Para 33][95-A-D]
3. It is thus clear that the prosecution has failed to bring
out the true genesis of the incident. The prosecution has not
come to the Court with clean hands. The present case too is full
of inconsistencies. The evidence of the witnesses is contradictory
to each others’. The investigation is carried out in a totally
irregular manner. As already discussed herein above, the
testimony of P.W.2 itself cannot be said to be of sterling quality.
The so-called recoveries are also totally untenable. [Para 34 and
38][95-E; 97-C]
4. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellants
on the sole testimony of P.W.2 would not be tenable. The Division
Bench of the High Court has relied on the recovery of the
Motorcycle and the Katta, allegedly at the instance of the
disclosure statement given by the accused No.1. Insofar as the
recovery of Motorcycle is concerned, the said Motorcycle has
been recovered at the instance of one ‘M’, son of ‘J’, i.e., son of
the accused No.3, and that too on 25th June, 1991. As such, the
PRAHLAD v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
finding of the High Court that it is recovered at the instance

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