RAJ NARAIN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 18-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 755 
RAJ NARAIN SINGH 
A 
~ 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 891-892 of 2002) 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 
B 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
, 
~ 
Penal Code, 18601 Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 302, 307, 323 c 
and 342 rlw s. 341 ss. 27 and 30 - Prosecution under -
Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - On 
appeal, held: Acquittal order not correct - Eye witnesses' 
version is consistent and corroborates the version of FIR -
Prosecution case was corroborated by medical evidence -
D 
Plea of private defence not proved - Non-examination of 
-,.., 
available witnesses not fatal - No particular number of 
witnesses required to prove a fact - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 
134. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Jurisdiction 
E' 
under - Scope of - Held : Jurisdiction not to be exercised to 
reweigh the evidence - Even if two views possible, Court not 
to interfere with order of acquittal, unless the acquittal order 
+. 
is perverse. 
F 
Respondents-accused were prosecuted ulss. 302, 
307, 323, 342 r/w s. 34 IPC and u/ss. 27 and 30 of Arms 
Act. As per prosecution, the incident was a result of an 
altercation between PW. 2 (relative of the deceased G 
persons) and the accused persons, who were running a 
j 
petrol pump. PW-1 (complaint), PW-2 and PW-3 were the 
eye-witnesses to the incident. Firearms were recovered 
755 
H 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
)
A from the possession of the accused. Accused No.3 had 
...
absconded. 
--+ 
The trial Court convicted all the three accused. In 
appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused. Hence, the 
B present appeals by the complainant and the State . 
. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The scope of appeals under Article 136 of 
~-' 
c the Constitution is very much limited. This Court does not 
. 
exercise its overriding powers under Article 136 to 
reweigh the evidence. The court does not disturb the 
concurren·t finding of facts ·reached upon proper 
D 
appreciation. Even iftwo views are reasonably possible, 
one indicating conviction and other acquittal, this Court 
!' 
will not interfere with the order of acquittal. But this Court 
'"f-
will not hesitate to interfere, if the acquittal is perverse in 
the sense that no reaiiiunable person would have come 
.,.. 
E 
to that conclusion, or if the acquittal is manifestly illegal 
or grossly unjust [Para 10] [765-G-H; 766-A-B] 
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415; 
Glwrey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450, referred to. 
y 
.+-
F 
2.1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the 
}-
case, the High Court clearly erred in reversing the order 
of conviction recorded by the trial Court. There is nothing 
to doubt the correctness of the version given by PW-1 
,. 
~ 
(complainant). He has proved the FIR lodged by him. 
.. 
G There is no contradiction between the facts stated in the 
FIR and in his evidence given before the trial Court, which 
).. 
has been corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-
3. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 who were eye-witnesses to the 
H 
4. 
IA 
. RAJ NARAIN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
757 
occurrence have fully proved the incident and 
A 
corroborated the statements mentioned in the FIR and 
there is no inconsistency in the statements of all.the three 
witnesses. There is no material contradiction in the cross-
examination and the entire facts of the FIR which has 
been fully supporte.d by the statements of all the thr~e· B 
aforesaid witnesses. [Paras 12, 13 and 24] [775-H; 776-
A; 768-B-C; 768-G-H] 
2.2. It is not correct to say that PW-3, being an 
employee of PW-1, is not independent witness an'.d 
C 
therefore his testimony could not be relied upon. This fact 
neither finds any support from the prosecution evidence 
nor has been proved by any defence witness. Accuse~ 
had relied upon the statement of PW-3 wherein he stated 
0 
PW-1 as master for submitting that PW-3 is a servant of 
PW-1. But a careful perusal of his statement wouht 
indicate that PW-3 called PW-1 as master as PW-1 was a 
teacher and therefore he was described as master. From 
the said evidence, It therefore, cannot be deduced that E 
PW-3 was a servant of PW-1 .. 
1[Para 14] [768-B-C; F-G] 
2.3. From the perusal of the post mortem report and 
the statement of the doctor it is clearly evident that the 
injuries on the deceased persons were found to be on 
F 
the chest which is a vital part of the body and the death, 
was natural

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