STATE OF U.P. versus AWDHESH

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 09-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-; 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 269 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
AWDHESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2001) 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB 
ALAM, JJ] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Conviction by trial C 
court u/s 396 /PC - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: High 
Court has rightly noticed the discrepancies and 
inconsistencies in prosecution evidence - A person has a 
profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not 
established by evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable D 
doubt - Keeping in view the principles regarding power of 
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against order of 
acquittal, and the view of the High Court being a possible one, 
the judgment of High Court requires no interference - Penal 
Code, 1860 - s. 396 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article E 
136. 
A case u/ss. 396 and 314 IPC was registered against 
the respondent and two others in connection with a 
dacoity committed at about mid day for about 2-3 hours 
by 16-17 dacoits in the house of PW-2 and PW-9, both, F 
brothers, wherein their another b(other was killed and 
some of the family members were injured. One of the 
accused absconded and the other died. The trial court 
convicted the respondent u/s 396 IPC and sentenced him 
to imprisonment for life. But, the High Court acquitted the G 
respondent. Aggrieved, the State filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1 The parameters for dealing with an appeal 
269 
H 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A against acquittal have been laid down by this Court in 
several cases. In the case of Chandrappa* , the Court has 
culled out general principles regarding powers of 
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against order 
of acquittal. [para 7 and 37] [276 C-D 292-C] 
B 
*Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Kamataka 2007 (4) 
SCC 415; Prandas v. State AIR 1954 SC 36; Atley v. State of 
UP AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 
(1961) 3 SCR 120; Bhagwan Singh v. State of MP (2002) 4 
SCC 85; and Harijana Thirupa/a v. Public Prosecutor, High 
C Court of A.P (2002) 6 sec 470 - relied on. 
Ramesh Babula! Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 
225; and Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha (2003) 12 
sec 606 - referred to. 
D 
Nur Mohd. v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151; and Shea 
E 
Swarup v. R. Emperor (1934) 61 IA 398 - referred to. 
1.2 In case of acquittal, there is a double presumption 
in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of 
innocence is available to him under the fundamental 
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person 
should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved 
to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the 
accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of 
his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, 
F reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. [para 12] 
[278 E-G] 
Surajpal Singh v. State 1952 seR 193; Ajmer Singh v. 
State of Punjab 1953 seR 418; M.G. Agarwal v. State of 
G Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. 
State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) sec 793; and K. Gopal Reddy 
v. State of A.P (1979) 1 sec 355 - relied on. 
Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra (1955) 2 seR 
1285; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2002) 3 SCC 
H 57; Ka/Ju v. State of M.P (2006) 10 SCC 313 - referred to. 
-4 
STATE OF U.P. v. AWDHESH 
271 
1.3 In the instant case, the High Court primarily A 
acquitted the accused on the premises that admittedly 
-1 
~ 
accused 'BS' and 'JS' on the one hand, and PW-2 and the 
deceased, on the other, were in inimical terms; the 
1 
respondent happened to be the brother-in-law of accused 
~ 
'BS' and the trial court lost sight of the enmity aspect; 
B 
that on the information of the village chowkidar (PW-3), 
the case was registered against unknown persons and 
no one was named as accused; that it was only when 
PW-2 submitted a written report to the Investigating Officer 
that the name of the respondent along with two others c 
was indicated; that PWs 11 and 12 admitted that they did 
~ 
not know the respondent, yet they deposed as if they 
were acquainted with him; that while some of the alleged 
dacoits were stated to have covered their faces to conceal 
~ 
their identity, the three named accused, who were known, 
did not try to cover their faces; that the witnesses on D 
hearing about the decoity had rushed to the Police Station 
and had no occasion to k
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.