STATE OF U.P. versus ABDUL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 05-05-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
ABDUL AND ORS. 
MAY 5, 1997 
B 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Criminal law : 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 174. 
C 
Inquest rep01t-FIR mentioned deceased was assaulted by banka but 
inquest report did not make say reference to banka-High Court disbelieved 
co"ectness of FIR and evidence of eyewitnesses on ground that their evidence 
was inconsistent with recitals in inquest report-Held : It is not necessary to 
record all the details of the incident in the inquest repo1t-Judgment of High 
D Court totally unsustainable. 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302/34. 
Evidence-Appreciation of-FIR mentioned all necessmy details about 
assault including role and weapon used by each accused-Evidence of brother · 
E of deceased was found reliable and absolutely no mate1ial brought out to 
discredit him-Uncle of deceased c'o"oborated his evidence and na"ated 
entire story in the same sequence without any omission or mistake-Held : 
In the circumstances of the case, High Court not justified in reversing convic-
tion of all four accused-Judgment of trial court restored-However, in view 
of passage of time death sentence imposed on one of the accused commuted 
F to imprisonment for life-Criminal. Trial. 
Acquittal-Appeal against-Held : Supreme Cowt would interfere with 
judgment of acquittal when it is based on a misconception of law and 
e"oneous appreciation of evidence-High Court erroneously discarded 
G prosecution story on an erroneous interpretation of S.174 CrPC.-Judgment 
of High Court is totally unsustainable. 
The respondents-accused were convicted under Section 302/34 of the 
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The first accused was awarded death sentence 
whereas the other three accused were sentenced to suffer imprisonment 
H for life. 
62 
j 
• 
STATE v. ABDUL 
63 
According to the prosecution, the deceased received a notice relating A 
to the 'No Confidence Motion' being moved against him as Pradhan. It was 
alleged that A-1 and his associates were instrumental in moving this 'No 
Confidence Motion'. The deceased, therefore, along with his brother (PW-
1) and uncle (PW-2) reached the house of DW-1, to discuss about the 'No 
Confidence Motion'. As soon as the deceased left the house of DW-1, A-1 B 
armed with his double barrel gun, A-2 and A-3 armed with katta and A-4 
armed with banka suddenly appeared on the scene of offence and encircled 
the deceased. A-1 then suddently fired at the deceased. A-4 assaulted the 
deceased with banka whereas A-2 and A-3 fired from their katta (country 
made pistol). The deceased died at the spot. A First Information Report 
was lodged and an inquest was held under Section 174 of the Criminal C 
Procedure Code, 1973. The FIR mentioned that the deceased was also 
assaulted by banka but the inquest report did not make any reference to the 
banka. 
<l'he High Court on reappraisal of the evidence and other materials D 
on record, acquitted all the accused. The High Court disbelieved the cor-
rectness of the FIR and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 on the ground that 
their evidence was inconsistent with the recitals in the inquest report. Being 
aggrieved the appellant-State preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1. The First Information Report mentioned all necessary 
details about the assault including the role and weapon used by each 
accused. The evidence of the brother (PW-1) of the deceased is reliable and 
there is absolutely no material brought out during the cross-examination F 
to discredit his testimony. The uncle (PW-2) of the deceased corroborated 
the evidence of PW-1 in all material particulars and he narrated the entire 
story in the same sequence without any omission or mistake. If this be so, 
the High Court had committed a serious error in not appreciating the 
evidence of these two eye witnesses in a proper perspective and had er- G 
roneously discarded the prosecution story on an erroneous interpretation 
of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It is not necessary to 
'1 
. record all the details of the incident in the inquest report. The judgment of 
the High Court is totally unsustainable and is set aside. However, in view 
of passage of time death sentence awarded to A-1 is commuted to imprison-
ment for life. [72-A-E; 71-F-HJ 
H 
'\ 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
Pedda Narayana & Ors. v. State of A.P., [1975] Suppl. SCR 84, relied 
on. 
2. This Court would not interfere wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.