STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus UTTAM KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 858 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
UTTAM KUMAR AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-B, 302, 382, 404 and 201-Murder-
Conviction under-Acquittal by High Court-Sustainability of-Held: Order 
C of High Court not sustainable since the prosecution case based on 
circumstantial evidence, on last seen evidence and recoveries at the instance 
of accused-High Court disregarded the evidence-Order was based on 
conjectures and surmises-Thus, order of High Court set aside and matter 
remitted back to High Court. 
D 
According to the prosecution case, accused U approached VD to hire 
his taxi. However, VD expressed his inability and asked RK-his brother to 
carry the accused since RK was going towards that place for getting the 
servicing of his car. U informed that two more persons would also come along 
with him. On the way RK along with U picked up more persons and RK 
stopped near his house and informed his mother that he would be late. 
E However, RK did not return home on the next day and his father asked VD to 
search for RK. VD enquired at the Police Station and was informed that the 
police had taken possession of a car found lying abandoned. VD recognized 
the car as owned by his brother and the number plate was found missing. 
Father of RK and VD lodged a missing report about RK. After few days on 
p the basis of the information by resident of the village, U was identified by VD 
and one more person as the one who had accompanied RK in his car on the 
date of hiring taxi. U made a disclosure statement that he and accused SK 
and PS had hidden the body ofRK and a badly defaced dead body was recovered. 
Thereafter, accused SK and PS and also RJ were also arrested and on basis 
of the disclosure statement recovery was made. Trial court found the accused 
G guilty of commission of offence under sections 302, 201, 212, 404 and 120-
8 and convicted them. However, High Court set aside the conviction. Hence 
the present appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court 
858 
----
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. UTTAM KUMAR 
859 
HELD: 1.1. The judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. No A 
doubt, there is no direct evidence in the case and the prosecution case is based 
on circumstantial evidence. However, a perusal of the judgment of the High 
Court shows that High Court has not properly considered the evidence on 
record and based its findings an ipse dixit. The statements of the witnesses 
clearly identify U who travelled with the deceased. It seems that the High Court B 
has disregarded the said evidence on flimsy grounds. It appears to be clearly 
established that U was the person who travelled with the deceased in his car 
on the date the taxi was hired. jParas 13 and 15) (864-D, G, H; 865-Aj 
1.2. The prosecution case is of the last seen evidence and is also based 
on recoveries at the instance of the accused. [Para 16] [865-A-Bj 
C 
1.3. V has clearly stated that it was U who travelled with the deceased 
in the latter's car on the date the taxi was hired. It has also come in the 
evidence of other witnesses that the deceased was also seen subsequently in 
the company of the other accused also. It is also the prosecution case that U 
while in police custody made disclosure statements leading to the recovery of D 
the dead body of R under a culvert, and other disclosures were also said to 
have been made by the other accused. [Paras 17 and 18) [865-B-D) 
1.4 The impugned judgment does not show a proper consideration of 
the evidence and seems to be based on conjectures and surmises, and hence E 
it is not sustainable. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment of the 
High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court 
for a fresh consideration of the evidence and a fresh decision in accordance 
with law. [Para 19) (865-E-F) 
) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 875-
F 
..: 
878 of2000. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2000 of the High Court 
of Judicature ofHimachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. A. Nos. 199, 25, 50 and 
127of1998. 
J.S. Attri and Vivek Singh for the Appellant. 
Varinder Kumar Sharma, lndu Malhotra, Madhukar Pandey, Kuna( Tandon, 
Shilpa Kaushik and Shashi M. Kapila for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. These appeals have been filed by the State 

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