LexSHER SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A B c D E F G SHER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH February 23, 1967 [M. HJDAYATULLAH, J. M. SHELAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]. Criminal /aw-Acquittal-If High Court in appeal can reverse-Value of inter-relationship between witness and victim. The appellants were charged for murder under s. 302/34 I.P.C and were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. On appeal the High Court revers- ed the acquittal and convicted the appellants under s. 302/34 I.P.C. In appeal to this Court the appellants contended that (i) since an acquittal "reinforces" the presumption of innocence, it was not a fit case for rever· sal of an acquittal. and (ii' the testimony of the eye witnesses in the case was found by the Sessions Judge to be unsatisfactory. HELD : The High Court rightly convicted the appellants. (i) The powers of the High Court in an appeal from an acquittal arc in no way different from those in an appeal from a conviction. The High Court can consider the evidence and weigh the probabilities. It can accept evidence rejected by the Sessions Judge and reject eviden-.::e accepted by him, unless the Sessions Judge relied upon his observation of the demeanour of a particular witness. In departing from the conclusions of the Sessions Judge the High Court must pay due attention to the grounds on which the acqu ttal is based on repeal those grounds satisfac- torily, bearing in mind always that an accused starts with a presumption of innonce in his favour and this presumption cannot certainly be les..c;. strong after the acquittal. If these matters are properly kept in view and the acquittal is reversed, there can no objection because the High Court is empowered to reverse an acquittal. [729 E..G] Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1961] 3 S.C.R. 120, referred to. (ii) The evidence of the eye witnesses was consistent, convincing and credible The. Sessions Judge lost sight of the main issue, namely, '¥he- ther what the eye witnesses said was credible, in an attempt 'to examine the inter-relation of the witnesses. This i" an inquiry of value up to ,a point but is not canclusive because there is no crime proved in small village communities where some kind of relationship cannot be estab~ished between witnesses and the victim and some petty quarrel shown to have taken place in the past. between some of the witnesses and the accused. To decide a case on the basis of .such circumstances, unless they are of great or significant magnitude, is to place reliance on collateral circumstances at the expense of direct evidence of guilt " !ch really matters. The first serves as a check upcn the latter but no more. [731 B-D] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1964. ff Appeal by special leave from the jL·dgment and order dated May 20, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No. 1386 of 1962. 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] 2 S.C.R A. S. R. Chari and A. K. Nag, for the appellants 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered h> Hidayatullah, J. The three appellants have been convicted by the High Court of Allahabad under s. 302i34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Harpal and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, after reversing their acquittal by the Ses- sions Judge, Meerut. Originally five persons were tried for this offence; All of them were acquitted by the Sessions Court. On appeal, the acquittal of the other two (Shanker and Tarif) was maintained but the three appellants (Shersingh, Baljor and Vijaipal) were convicted. They now appeal hy special leave granted by this Court. The appellants are brothers and sons of ~arayansingh. Tarif and Shanker arc brothers of Narayansingh. The deceased Harpal was the brother of Naharsingh (P. W. 1) and Amichand (P. W. 5). The house of Amichand and his brothers is in front of that of the appellants, in Mauza Amanullahpur, Police Station Jani, D!strict Meerut, where the offence was committed. As frequently happens this murder was the result of a petty quarrel earlier over the taking of carts throug:. fields. It is hardly necessary to recount in detail what had then happened. Suffice it to say that Shersingh took his cart through Harpal's field and there was a wordy quarrel. Next Shcrsingh stopped a cart in which Harpal was carryir.g sugarcane and Harpal kicked Sher- singh and beat him with fist blows. Nahar Singh (P. W. 1) and Khazan (P. W. 7
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.