LexSTATE OF U.P. versus ATUL SINGH ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 453 STATE OF U.P. A v. ":- ATUL SINGH ETC. ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1262-64 of 2004) MAY 8, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR , GANGULY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 and 302134 - Prosecution of three accused - For murder of one - Trial court convicting c one accused u/s. 302 and other two u/s 302134 - Reliance - placed on evidence of eye-witness (father of deceased) - Acquittal by High Court disbelieving evidence of eye-witness and on the ground that names of the accused or the nature of weapon not mentioned in inquest report - On appeal, held: D Evidence of the eye-witness is cogent and credible - Non- mention of names of assailants or the nature of weapon in inquest report cannot be a ground to discard evidence of the eye-witness - His relationship with the deceased also cannot affect his credibility - Acquittal of the accused, who was E convicted u/s. 302 not correct - However, evidence is not sufficient to bring in application of s. 34 as regards other two _,. ' accused - Their acquittal justified - Evidence - Evidentiary value of related witness. The three respondents-accused were prosecuted for F causing death of a person. As per prosecution, the deceased came home and told his father (PW1) that he picked up a quarrel with the respondents-accused in front of a Degree College. When PW1 was going with the G deceased and two others to make a complaint to the ..... Principal of the Degree College, on the way respondents- ,, accused exhorted and one of the accused 'S' fired at the deceased which resulted in his death when he was taken to the hospital. Trial court convicted the accused 'S' uls. 453 H 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A 302 IPC and the other accused u/s. 302/34 IPC, relying on the evidence of PW-1 (eyewitness), High Court acquitted them. Hence the present appeal. B Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The conclusions of the High Court are based on surmises and conjectures and hypothesis. Mere non-mention of the names of the assailants or the nature of the weapon in the inquest report, cannot be a ground to discard the evidentiary value of PW1's C evidence. [Para 7] [460-A-B] 1.2. Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members, their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is an allegation of interestedness, the same 0 has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more · E often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is F cogent and credible. [Para 8] [460-C-E] Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1974 (3) SCC 698; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202; State G of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407; Lehna v. State of Haryana 2002 (3) SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa 2002 (8) SCC 381; Babula/ Bhagwan Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2005(10) SC C 404 and Salim Saheb v. State of M.P. 2007(1) SCC 699, H relied on. = . .. STATE OF U.P. v. ATUL SINGH ETC. ETC. 455 '"( ' 1.3. So far as the non-mention of the name of PW1 A wh~ was accompanying the deceased to the hospital, is concerned, DW1, the Chief Pharmacist has clearly stated in his cross-examination that in case an injured is accompanied by several persons to the hospital, only one's name is recorded who is most close to the injured. B He has also stated that besides his mother others may ;. have accompanied the deceased to the hospital. The presumptuous conclusion that merely because the name of the deceased's mother was recorded in the medical records, PW1's presence is ruled out is indefensible. c Similarly PW1 has categorically stated that he did not go to Court (his work place) because it was a Saturday and '' the lawyers were on strike for a particular reason. There was no cross-examination even on this aspect. The High Court's conclusion that he was expected to be at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.