LexSTATE OF U.P. versus ANIL SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF U.P.
A
v.
ANIL SINGH
AUGUST 26, 1988
[G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.]
B
Constitutiion of India, 1950: Article 136--Under article 136 the
scope of appeal very limited--:--Even if two views reasonabiy possible
·,, ·
court will not interfere with order of acquittal-Court will also not
hesitate to interfere if the acquittal is perverse.
The respondent. Anil Singh was tried for the murder of Keshav
C
Kiimar, his erstwhile friend and classmate. The Trial Court convicted.
the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High
Court doubting the credibility of the eye-witnesses, discarded the pro-
secution case and acquitted the respondent.
D
Allowing the appeals, it was,
HELD: (1) The scope of appeals under Article 136 of the Con-
stitution is undisputedly very limited. This Court· does not exercise its
overriding powers under Article 136 to reweigh the evidence. Even if
two views are reasonably possible, one indicating conviction and other
E
acquittal, this Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal. But
the Court will not hesitate to interfere if the acquittal is perverse in the
sense that no reasonable person would have come tQ that con~lusion, or
if the acquittal is manifestly illegal or grossly unjust.
1 [6l6'AJ
State of U.P. v. Yashoda Nandan Gupta, AIR 1974 SC,i53 and
F
State of A. P. v. R. Anjaneyulu, AIR 1982 SC 1598, referred to.
(2) The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose
before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution
version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occ11rrence have not
been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corrobora-
G ,
lion by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and
acceptable. (617B-D]
(3) It is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst
witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated
version. The Court should made an effort to disengage the truth from
H
611
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A falsehood and to sift the gr:i.in from the chaff rather than taking an easy
course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case
as untrue. [617C-D; 617FJ
c
Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 C.W.N. 626 PC and Abdul
Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 31, referred to.
(4) Invariably the witnesses add embroidery to the prosecution
story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to
throw the case overboard, if there is a ringoftrnth in the main. [617Gl
(5) It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from
the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or
falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnes-
ses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a
criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge
also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as
important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to
D 'perform. [6i7G-H; 618A]
(6) The Court gave its anxious consideration to all material facts
and circumstances of the case and came to the conclusion that the
decision of the High Court could not be supported. [622C]
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 671-672 of 1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.4.1980 of the Allahabad
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 1978.
p
A.N. Mulla, Yogeswar Prasad, Mrs. Sarla Chand, Girish Chand,
0
Ms. Rachna Joshi and D. Bhandari Advocate (N.P.} for the
Appellant.
Frank Anthony, J.K. Das, J.R. Das and S.K. Patri for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. The State of U.P. and the
informant have preferred these appeals with special leave, challenging
the on;ler of acquittal recorded by the Allahabad High Court in Crimi-
H
nal Appeal No. 2340 of 1978. Anil Singh, the common re~pqrident in
STATE OF U.P. v. ANIL SINGH (SHETTY, J.]
613
the appeals was tned for the murder of Keshav Kumar ('KK') by the
Court of Session (Non-Metropolitan area), Kanpur. He was convicted
and sentenced to imprisonment for life. But on appeal, he was acquii-
ted by the High Court.
'
The prosecution story of the occurrence may be stated at· some
length.
The respondent-accused and KK were.almost of equal age. They
are friends as well as class mates. They were also co-accused in some Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.