STATE OF U.P. versus CHANDRAPAL & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 22-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 15 S.C.R. 313 
STATE OF U.P. 
A 
v. 
CHANDRAPAL & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2002) 
OCTOBER 22, 2008 
8 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND 
) 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 and 302 rlw 34 - Acquittal of c 
accused, by High Court on grounds that medical evidence 
was in serious conflict with oral evidence and that authenticity 
of the FIR was doubtful - Challenge to - On facts, held: 
Conclusion of High Court that there were many manipulations 
and a new story was concocted, not without rational basis -
D 
No interference called for by Supreme Court. 
' ~ 
According to the prosecution, Respondent No.1 fired 
gunshots at the brother of PW2 which proved fatal while 
Respondent No.2 (the father of Respondent No.1) 
E 
inflicted injuries on the abdomen and chest of PW2 with 
a sharp cutting weapon 'Karauli'. 
Trial Court convicted Respondent No.1 under s.302 
't 
IPC and Respondent No.2 under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC. On 
appeal, the High Court acquitted the Respondents. 
F 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court, with reference to the injuries 
G 
found on PW2 and the post-mortem report, concluded , 
that the medical evidence was in serious conflict with oral 
j-. 
evidence and the possibility of there being more than two 
assailants and use of several kinds of weapons cannot 
313 
H 
---. 
\.. 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A be ruled out. Additionally, it was noticed by the High Court 
that the FIR appeared to be a suspicious document. In the 
report, initially the name of the wife of deceased was 
stated to be the informant but later on the name of PW1 
was added. The time of starting of inquest proceeding, as 
B disclosed in the Panchayatnama-and time of completion 
of inquest are in different inks. No time of lodging the FIR 
is mentioned and in the inquest report the time appeared 
to have been over-written in different inks. Further, PW1 
claimed to have been examined by Dr. J.S. Rai at 6.00 a.m.-
C and he was brought by constable of Kotwali Police 
Station and not of Ghazipur Police Station. The High 
Court, from the aforesaid facts, concluded that the first 
informant had left the police station much prior to 6.00 
a.m. The report was claimed to have been written at 8.00 
a.m. The High Court was, therefore, of the view that the 
D possibility of consultation and manipulation ca1mot be 
ruled out. The discrepancies in the inquest report, the 
non-mentioning of the time of FIR and entries made in 
different inks certainly raise a doubt about the authenticity 
of the document. The factors which weighed when the 
E High Court concluded that there were many 
manipulations and a new story was concocted, cannot be 
said to be a finding without any rational basis. [Paras 7 
and 8] [317-G, H; 318-A-D; F] 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
G 
No. 60 of 2002. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated ·j 8.12.2000 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal 
No. 2086 of 1980. 
S.K. Dwivedi, AAG., S.N. Pandey and Chandra Prakash 
Pandey for the Appellant. 
A. 
B.B. Singh for the Respondents. 
H 
( 
...----
STATE OF U.P. v. CHANDRAPAL & ANR. 
315 
_..-4 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
parties. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the 
B 
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing aquittal 
of two respondents - Chandra Pal, son of Jagannath and 
~ 
Jagannath, son of Gajju, who faced trial for alleged commission 
of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') so far as Respondent No.1-Chandra 
Pal is concerned, and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC c 
so far as Respondent No.2 is concerned. It is to be noted that 
Respondent No.2-Jagannath died during the pendency of the 
appeal and, therefore, the appeal has abated so far as he is 
I 
concerned. 
r 
3. The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased of D 
l 
this case was Sodhi. He was instrumental in getting Siyapati 
_. 
daughter of his maternal uncle married to accused Chandra Pal. 
However, accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry 
given in the marriage and therefore, they were treating Siyapati 
E 
with cruelty and ultimately turned her out of the house. 
Deceased Bodhi took up the cause of Siyapati and he 
convened a panchayat on her behalf. The panchayat was held 
in the morning of 3.7.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.