STATE OF U.P. versus ATAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 1018 · Decided: 07-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 _, 
A 
STATEOFU.P. 
v. 
ATAR SINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.] 
~ 
,..,. 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 302, 323 and 324rlw149, 147and148 
and 452-Murder 452-Murder and injury caused-Three eye-
c witnesses-Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court on the 
grounds interalia that motive not proved, prosecution case not 
corroborated by independent witnesses, independent eye-witness not 
trustworthy and non-explanation of injury on one of the accused 
creating doubt about prosecution case-On appeal, held: .Acquittal 
D justified in view of cumulative effect of the circumstances of the case-
--4 
However non-explanation of the injury on the accused, in the facts, 
~ .
would not affect veracity of the prosecution case. 
Criminal Trial-Non-explanation of injury on the accused-
; 
E Effect of-On prosecution case. 
Practice and Procedure-Criminal appeal-Against order of 
acquittal-Review of evidence-Permissibility. 
Appeal-Appeal against ac:quittal-lnte1jerence with-Scope of 
F 
Respondents-accused were prosecuted for having caused death 
.,~ 
of on person and causing injuries was that sister of five of the 
1· 
respondents had been abduct_ed by brother-in-law of PW-1, six 
months prior to the incident. On the day of the incident exchange of 
hot words and abuse took place between PWl and father of five of 
G the accused 'D" in conneeti.on with the abduction. On intervention 
of two persons, PW, 1 went to his house. Thereafter, 'D' alongwith 
y-< 
the appellants-accused entered the house of PWl. Two of the 
appellants were armed with spears while rest were armed with lathis. 
They assaulted he deceased, PW 1and3 and mother of PW-1 and 
H 
1018 
STATE v. ATARSINGH 
1019 
3. Incident was also seen by PW-2. When Police reached the spot, A 
he found the deceased and PWs 1and3 and their mother in inured 
condition. Statement of the deceased was recorded by the Police. 
Deceased died after 3 days of the incident accused 'D' died after 
few days of the incident. Trial Court, convicted the respondents u/s 
302, 323 and 324 r/w 149 and 452. Five of the accused were further B 
convicted u/s 147 IPC and the rest two were further convicted u/s 
148 IPC. 
High Court acquitted the respondents. Acquittal was on the 
grounds that the motive was not proved; that witnesses to the 
exchange of hot words between 'D' and PW-1, were not examined C 
to as to indicate the origin of incident; that prosecution version is 
not corroborated by independent witnesses; evidence of PW-2 is not 
trustworthy as his presence at the place of incident was not 
established; that few persons whose names appeared in FIR as 
witnesses were not examined; that statement of the deceased D 
recorded by Investigating Officer would be a statement u/s 161 
Cr.P.C. and the same could not be treated to be the dying declaration; 
that no explanation was offered as to why the dying declaration was 
not recorded in the presence of Magistrate even though the 
deceased died 3 days after the incident; and that non-explanation E · 
of injuries on the person of one of the accused cast a doubt about 
the actual time, place, number of assailants and weapons. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
,.... '>-
HELD: 1.1. There is no embargo on the appellate Court 
reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. 
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because 
the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened 
F 
by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of G 
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are 
"~ 
possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the 
guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is 
favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount 
consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is H 
1020 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal 
of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a 
case where admissible evidtoce is ignored, a duty is cast upon the 
appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has 
been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of 
B the accused really committed any offence or not. 
[Para 10) [1025-G; 1026-A, B, CJ 
~ 
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 2 
Supreme567, re

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