STATE OF U.P. versus ABDUL KARIM AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 26-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STA TE OF U.P. 
v. 
ABDUL KARIM AND ORS. 
JULY 26, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.302 rlw s.34-Death pursuant to assault with iron rod and sharp 
C cutting weapons-Conviction of accused-Respondents by Trial Court-Set 
aside by High Court in appeal-Appeal against the acquittal-Held: One 
eye-witness partially resiled from her statement made during investigation-
Another stated that he saw the accused persons committing assaults, but in 
cross examination admitted that he reached when the assault was over-All 
D the witnesses were far away from the field where the alleged incident took 
place-Field was also obstructed by standing crops of sugarcane not less 
than· 6-7 ft in height-Therefore they could not have seen the assaults-
Additionally, though all witnesses stated that accused persons were carrying 
sharp cutting weapons and rods, not even one injury was incised-Jn view 
of the total discrepant nature of evidence, High Court rightly discarded the 
E prosecution version and set aside the conviction. 
According to the prosecution, the Respondents assaulted the husband 
of PWI with iron rod, spade and 'kassi' and thereby caused his death. The 
incident occurred at the agricultural field of the deceased. One day prior to 
F the incident, deceased had an altercation with one of the Respondents. Trial 
Court convicted the Respondents under s. 302 r/w s. 34 IPC placing reliance 
upon the evidence of PWs I, 2 and 3, all of whom are stated to be eye-witnesses. 
PW2 and PW3 are respectively the brother and son of PWI. High Court, 
however, acquitted the Respondents holding that the prosecution had failed to 
establish its acquisitions vis-a-vis them. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Coqrt 
HELD: 1.1. PW-I partially resiled from her statement made during 
investigation. According to her, she saw the assailants from a distance of one 
mile. Sugarcanes were standing in the field which intervened between the 
540 
STATE OF U.P. v. ABDUL KARIM 
541 
place where she was and the field where the incident occurred. She accepted A 
that she had not herself seen the assault but saw the accused persons while 
they were making their escape towards the jungle. She claimed to have seen 
them running from a distance of one mile. She further admitted that in between 
the village and her field number of fields were situated where sugarcane and 
wheat crops were standing. (Para 9( (545-H; 546-A-BI 
1.2. PW-2 stated that he had also seen the accused persons committing 
the assaults. But in the cross-examination he admitted that he had come to 
the place when the assault was over and he had seen the accused persons 
running towards the jungle in the sugarcane field. He accepted that he was 
B 
with PW I. (Para 10) (546-C) 
C 
J .3. PW-3 was a child of 9 years at the time of incident He also admitted 
to have seen the accused persons running away with their backs towards him 
standing near his mother. (Para Jl) (546-D) 
2. The evidence of PWs J, 2 and 3 clearly indicated that they were far D 
away from the field where the alleged incident took place. The High Court 
noted that identification was practically impossible from such a large distance 
particularly when the field was obstructed by standing crops of sugarcane 
which were not less than 6-7 ft in height. The High Court therefore rightly 
observed that they could not have seen the assaults not only because of the 
distance but because of the presence of hei'. ht~ of crops of sugarcane. E 
Additionally, though all the witnesses stated that the accused persons were 
carrying sharp cutting weapons and rods, not even one injury was an incised 
one. All the injuries were either lacerated wounds or contusion. 
[Para 12) (546-D-E) 
3. In view of the total discrepant nature of the evidence, the High Court F 
has rightly discarded the prosecution version and set aside the conviction. 
(Para 13) (546-F) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.05.2000 of the High Court of 
Judicautre at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1019 of 1980. 
M.C. Dhingra, Vijay Pratap Singh, Anuvarat Sharma and Praveen Swarup 
for the Appellant. 
G 
H 
542 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Asijit Kumar Roy and Premanand M.S. (for Surya Kant) for the 
Ref.pondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was deliverei:l by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,;.:J; l. The State ofU.P. has filed this appeal 

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