RAMA KANT VERMA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 02-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

{2008] 16 S.C.R. 1013 
RAMA KANT VERMA 
A 
-+ 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 934-939 of 2001) 
DECEMBER '2, 2008 
B 
·.[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB. 
·-{ 
ALAM, JJ.] 
,. 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
ss. 3021149 and 148 - Four persons stated to have been 
killed by six accused - Trial Court convicting and sentencing 
four of the accused to death - Acquittal by High Court -
Appeals by complainant and State - Held - Conclusions 
arrived at by High Court are utterly confusing and based on 
D 
surmises and conjectures - Presence of witnesses has been 
erroneously discarded - Matter remittf;d to High Court for 
..., 
disposal afresh in accordance with Jaw . 
~ 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
E 
Article 136 - Locus standi of complainant to file appeal 
- Held: Exercise of power by the Court is not circumscribed 
by any limitation as to who may invoke it. 
Respondents Nos.2 to 5 along with two others were 
F 
prosecuted u/ss.3021149 and 148 IPC on the allegations 
,. i 
that they caused death of four persons by causing 
injuries to them by 'gandasa', 'banka' etc. at about 2.30 
a.m. in the night while the victims were asleep. The 
victims died on the spot. The incident was stated to have 
G 
been witnessed by PW1 and PW2. On the alarm raised 
by them, their father an.d some other villagers reached 
~ 
there and the accused fled away. The accused were 
identified by the witnesses in the torch light and the 
electr!c light. The cause of the incident was stated to be 
1013 
H 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A prior enmity between the two sides owing to a litigation 
with regard to a land dispute. The trial court convicted 
respondents 2 to 5 of the offences ·charged and 
sentenced them to death. Two of the accused were 
acquitted. The convicts filed appeal. The State too 
B appealed against order of acquittal of two _of the accused. 
Reference ·was alscf made by the trial court in terms of 
s.366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High 
Court allowed the appeal of the accused and acquitted 
them, dismissed the appeal of the State and rejected the 
c reference. Aggrieved, the complainant and the State filed 
the appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELO: 1. A bare perusal of .the judgment of the High 
D Court shows that the conclusions arrived at by it are 
utterly confusing and based on surmises and 
conjectures. The witnesses could not have stated the 
scenario with surgical precision .. The presence of the 
witnesses has been erroneous.ly discarded~ In the 
E circumstances, the. matter is remitted to the High Court 
.for hearing the cases afresh and disposing them of in 
accordan.ce with law. [Paras 6,7,9 and 10] (1020-A; 1022-
F; 1024-D; 1025-G] 
. State of AP. v. Kandagopa/udu 2005(13) SCC 116 and. 
F B.I).· Channappa v. State of Kamataka 200G(12)SCC 57, 
relied on. 
r 
2. The stand of the accused-respondents fhat the 
complainant has no locus standi to prefer any appeal is 
G of no avail. The exercise of power under Article 136 of the 
Constitution is not circumscribed by any limitation as to 
who may invoke it: In any event the State has preferred 
the appeal. [Para 9] [1024-D; 1025-A] 
H 
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai & Ors. 2003(12) SCC 395, 
r
I 
•r
~
I 
t ,--
l • 
; 
RAMA KANT VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
1015 
~ 
' 
" ·-.l 
relied on. 
A 
Case Law Reference: 
2005 (13) sec 116 
relied on 
para 7 
2006 (12) sec s1 
relied on 
para 8 
B 
2003 (12) sec 395 
relied on 
para 9 
Ai 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 934-939 of 2001. 
From the Order and Judgment dated 21.12.2000 of the c 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, 
Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2000, Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 14, 25, 26, 27, 28 of 2000 and Capital Sentence No. 1 
of 2000. 
D 
WITH 
_..., 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1202-1206 of 2001 . 
... 
S.R. Singh, p.s. Mishra, Manoj K. Mishra, V.K. Mishra, Rati 
E 
Gupta, Sanjay Visen, Fazail Khan, Anil Kumar Jha, Ajai Bhalla, 
.. 
Abhinav Jain, Tathagat Harshvardhan and Abha R. Sharma for· 
the appearing parties. 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals 
F 
. i 
is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High 
Court, Lucknow Bench, directing acquittal of the respondents 
2 to 5 who were found guilty of offences punishable under 
Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Appellant was the 

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