LexRAJU AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1147 : 2024 INSC 633 Raju and Another v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 1151 of 2010) 31 July 2024 [Surya Kant,* Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction of the appellant u/s. 307 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Attempt to murder – Prosecution case that appellants armed with knives and lathis inflicted injuries to the victims – Registration of FIR by complainant to whom the incident was narrated later – Trial court acquitted the appellant and his co-accused, however, the High Court sentenced the appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and upheld acquittal of other two accused – Correctness: Held: Conviction u/s. 307 may be justified only if the accused possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its execution – Ascertaining the intention to kill or having the knowledge that death may be caused as a result of the overt act, is a question of fact and hinges on the unique circumstances that each case may present – Chain of evidence proffered by the prosecution has to be as complete as is humanly possible and it does not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must instead, indicate that the act had indeed been singularly committed by the accused only – On facts, having analysed the evidence on record, there are several gaps in the prosecution story – Prosecution story has been demolished by the oral testimonies of the witnesses, including the medical experts, coupled with the contents of the FIR registered by a hearsay witness – There is no motive attributed to the appellant or his co-accused in order to justify their conviction u/s. 307 – It is not even the prosecution’s case that this was a chance occurrence – High Court ought to have given due weightage to the glaring inconsistencies, before reversing a well-reasoned order of * Author 1148 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports acquittal – When the trial court has acquitted the accused based on a plausible understanding of the evidence, and such finding is not marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the High Court ought not to overturn such an order of acquittal – Trial court, after reviewing the entire evidence on record, was correct in concluding that the totality of circumstances casts doubt on the alleged incident and suggests that the prosecution witnesses may have concealed the actual story – Thus, not safe to convict the appellant on the basis of such laconic evidence – Appellant is acquitted – Order of conviction by the High Court set aside, and that of the trial court restored in so far as the appellant is concerned. [Paras 7, 9, 14-17] Case Law Cited State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983) 2 SCC 28; Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [2004] 2 SCR 861 : AIR 2004 SC 2678; Andhra Pradesh v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy (2018) 7 SCC 623; Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 1 SCR 1091; Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 656; Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622; Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab [2010] 1 SCR 642 : (2010) 2 SCC 333; Ballu @ Balram v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2024] 4 SCR 48 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Attempt to murder; Intent coupled with some overt act; Oral testimonies of the witnesses; Hearsay witness; Chain of evidence; Reasoned order; Misreading of the evidence. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1151 of 2010 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2009 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in GA No. 1458 of 2001 Appearances for Parties Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. Alka Sinha, Advs. for the Appellants. Advitiya Awasthi, Akshat Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent. [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1149 Raju and Another v. State of Uttarakhand Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) in Appeal No. 1458/2001, whereby the judgment and order dated 13.10.1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Dehradun (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’) in S.T. No. 116/1994 was su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.