LexRAMESH HARIJAN versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 6 S.C.R. 688 RAMESH HARIJAN v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1340 of 2007) MAY 21, 2012 [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 376 - Rape and murder of a minor girl aged 5-6 years - Deceased last seen with the C accused by two witnesses - Recovery of the part of bed sheet having blood and semen, in the presence of panch witnesses - Medical evidence supporting prosecution case - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: Appellate court to interfere with acquittal order only in D exceptional cases - In the instant case High Court rightly interfered with acquittal order - Acquittal order by trial court was illegal, unwarranted and was based on mis-appreciation of evidence as it gave undue weightage to unimportant discrepancies and inconsistencies which resulted in E miscarriage of justice. F G H Criminal Trial - Benefit of doubt - Held: The doubt should be reasonable based upon reason and common sense and not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt - The duty of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided. Witness - Hostile witness - Evidentiary value - Held: Evidence of hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole - Relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used - Evidence. Maxim: 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' - Applicability. · The appellant-accused was prosecuted for having raped and caused death of minor girl aged 5-6 years. The 688 RAMESH HARIJAN v. STATE OF U.P. 689 prosecution case was that PW-2 (mother of the deceased) A lodged an FIR alleging that the deceased was raped and killed by the appellant-accused, when the deceased with her blind grandmother was sleeping in the house of the accused. She also made a request to exhume the dead body of the decease as the same was buried. As per the B post-mortem report of the dead body, death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem vaginal injuries. Case was registered against the accused u/ss. 302 and 376 IPC, on the basis of the post-mortem report. Trial Court acquitted the accused, of both the charges. c The appeal preferred by the State was allowed by High Court, convicting the accused for both the charges. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. Appellant-accused contended that the High Court committed an error in reversing the acquittal order; that D there was no evidence to establish that the deceased used to sleep in the house of appellant or the appellant had the opportunity to commit the offence; that the evidence of PW1 (the scribe of the FIR), PWs 7 and 8 (the alleged eye-witnesses to the commission of offence) E which have been relied upon by the High _Court, cannot stand judicial scrutiny as these witnesses were motivated; that depositions of PWs 7 and 8 was liable to be discarded as a whole as there were improvements in their depositions, and that other witnesses also could not F be relied upon as they turned hostile. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Only in exceptional cases, where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is G found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 6 S.C.R. A the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible, should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. The acquittal in the instant case by the trial court was totally illegal, unwarranted and based on mis- 8 appreciation of evidence for the reason that the court had given undue weightage to unimportant discrepancies and inconsistencies which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thu·s, the High Court was fully justified in reversing the order of acquittal. [Paras ·16 and 27] [703- C A-B; 709-A-B] State of Rajasthan v. Talevar and Anr. AIR 2011 SC 2271: 2011 (6)SCR 1050; State of UP. v. Mohd. lqram and Anr. AIR 2011 SC 2296: 2011 (6) SCR 1017; Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police Station and Anr. D (2012) 4 SCC 722; State of Haryana v. Shakuntla and Ors. (2012) 4 SCALE 526 - relied on. 2. The trial court committed an error in recording the finding of fact that the thatched house of roof of the E maternal grandmother of the de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.