SHYAM BABU versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 07-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 8 S.C.R. 255 
SHYAM BABU 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 2006) 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 148, 307 and 302 rlw 149 -
Prosecution under - Five deaths and injury to one - Caused 
A 
B 
by fire-shots from 7 accused - Acquittal by trial court - High 
C 
Court convicting 3 accused and the appeal abated against 4 
of the accused due to their death - During pendency of 
appeal to Supreme Court, appeal abated against 2 of the 
three surviving accused - Held: In view of the evidence of the 
three eye-witnesses (one of whom was injured); medical o 
evidence and FSL report, prosecution established its case -
Accused liable to be convicted - The sole accused cannot 
be exonerated from conviction because the other accused 
died due to natural death and because there was delay of 25 
years in disposal of appeal by High Court. 
E 
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Held: Appellate court 
to interfere with acquittal order only on being satisfied that the 
view taken by trial court was perverse and unreasonable 
resulting in miscarriage of justice. 
Witness - Related witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: 
F 
There is no bar in law on examining related persons as 
witnesses - If statements of witnesses who are related to the 
affected parties is credible, reliable, trustworthy and 
corroborated by other witnesses, court not to reject their G 
evidence. 
Appellant-accused, alongwith others was prosecuted 
ulss. 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC for having caused 
255 
H 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 
A five deaths and for causing injury to 1 person. As per 
prosecution, the death and injuries were caused due to 
firing by the accused persons. Post-mortem report and 
the evidence of the doctor who conducted autopsy on 
dead bodies, revealed that the death was caused due to 
B shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem 
injuries. FSL opined that the blood-stained clothes of the 
deceased and blood-smeared earth contained human 
blood. There were three eye-witnesses viz. PWs. 1, 3 and 
6. 
c 
Trial court acquitted all the seven accused of all the 
charges. High Court, in appeal, set aside the acquittal 
order holding that prosecution established the case 
against all the accused. Since 4 of the accused died their 
natural death during the pendency of the appeal and the 
D case against them abated, High court convicted the 
remaining three accused. 
During pendency of the appeal to this Court, two out 
of the three surviving accused died and the case abated 
E against them. 
The sole accused (appellant) contended that High 
Court was not justified in modifying the acquittal into 
conviction; that since the prosecution witnesses were 
related to deceased persons, their evidence could not 
F have been relied upon; that since prosecution against 6 
out of the 7 accused stood abated, the sole accused 
should be exonerated from the conviction and sentence; 
and that he should be discharged from the commission 
of offence on the ground that there was delay of 25 years 
G in disposal of the appeal, by High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is true that it would not be possible for 
H the appellate Court to interfere with the order of acquittal 
SHYAM BABU v. STATE OF U.P. 
257 
passed by the trial court without rendering specific 
A 
finding, namely, that the decision of the trial court is 
perverse or unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of 
justice. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the 
appellate court while entertaining an appeal against the 
judgment of acquittal by the trial court is entitled to re-
B 
appreciate the evidence and come to an independent 
conclusion. In doing so, the appellate court should 
consider every material on record and the reasons given 
by the trial court in support of its order of acquittal and 
should interfere only on being satisfied that the view c 
taken by the trial court is perverse and unreasonable 
resulting in miscarriage of justice. If two views are 
possible on a set of evidence, then the appellate court 
need not substitute its own view in preference to the view 
of the trial court which has recorded an order of acquittal. 
0 
[Para 9] [264-E-H] 
2. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 have appeared as eye-
witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1, son of on of the 
deceased has categorically narrated all the facts of the 
occurrence. The other eye-witnesses relied on by the 
E 
prosecution and acc

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