LexSTATE OF U.P. versus DINESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 1175
STATE OF U.P.
A
v
· DINESH
Criminal Appeal No. 1271 of 2001'
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT P~SAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ)
Code 'ot Criminal Procedure, 1973:
~-3?8(/w Article 136 of the Constitution -Appeal against
acquittal - Scope of - Discussed - Keeping in view the c
material infirmities and contradictions in evidence of witnesses
~nd discrepancies in ocular version and medical evidence,
High .. Court rightly acquitted the accused - Penal Code, 1860
- s. 302 -:--
Evidenc.~. ~ Ocular version .vis-a-vis medical
evidence -: . ConstitiJtioQ of India - Article 136.
D
The respondent along with another, namely, 'V'. was
charged with the offence of m.urder. The prosecution case
. was that when the complainant (PW-3) alongwith his
brother-in-law. and others were go_ing to deliver milk, on E
.f 'I.
·• ;
:
•
! ~ '.
·•
the way, the accused armed with pistols ancf knife came
out of the fields, caught hold of the brother-inlaw of PW-
• 3, took him into the fields and fired at him from their
pistols. The respondent also inflicted knife injuries to him.
The victim succumbed to the injuries. On the alarm raised F
by, PW~3, so.me persons from the nearby village came
there and t.he accused fled away. The motive for the
murder.was. told, fo be the dispute over a tractor., During
the pendency of the trial, accused 'V' died. The trial court
convicted the respondent of the offence charged and G
...
sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court
having acquitted the respondent, the State filed the
.'<
appeal.
1175
H
1176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 2 S.C.R.
A
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 makes it clear that no restrictions have
been imposed by the legislature on the powers of the
8
appellate court in dealing with appeals against acquittal.
In Chandrappa's case*, the Court has culled out the
general principles regarding powers of appellate court
while dealing with such an appeal. In case of acquittal,
there is a double presumption in favour of the accused.
:.,
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him
C 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
D weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the court acquitting him. [para 7-8] (1183-E; 1183-G-H]
*Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2007 (2 )
SCR 630 =2007 (4) SCC 415 - relied on.
E
Prandas v. State AIR 1954 .. SC 36; Surajpal Singh v. State
1952 SCR 193; Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab 1953 SCR
418; Atley v. State of UP AIR 1955 SC 807; Aher Raja Khima
v. State of Saurashtra 1955) 2 :SGR 1285; Sanwat Singh v.
State of Rajasthan (1961) 3 SCR 120; M.G Agarwal v. State of
F
Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405; Shivaj{ Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) SCC 793; K. Gopa/ Reddy v.
State of A.P (1979) 1SCC355; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State
of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of
Gujarat (2002) 3 SCC 57; Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P
G -(2002) 4 SCC 85; Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P (2002) 6 SCC 470; Ramanand Yadav v.
~
Prabhu Nath Jha (2003) 12 SCC 606; Kal/u v. State of M.P
(2006) 10 sec 313 - referred to.
Shea Swarup v. R. Emperor (1934) 61IA398; Nur Mohd.
H
v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151 - referred to.
I
(
I
STATE OF U.P. V. DINESH
1177
1.2 In the instant case, the discrepancies highlighted A,
by the High Court cannot be stated to be trival. The
conclusions arrived at by the High Court clearly establish
material infirmities and contradictions in the evidence of
the two vital witnesses, PWs. 3 and 4. It is true that PW.4
was a child of about 1 O years, but the court found him to B
be in a position to depose. The High Court has found that
the presence of PW.3 at the spot, in view of certain aspects
highlighted in his cross-examination, is highly
improbable. Though ocular testimony of witnesses had
greater evidentiary value v·is-a-vis medical evidence, but c
when medical evidence totally improbablises the ocular
testimony, that becomes a relevant factor in the process
of evaluation of evidence. In the instant case, the med_ical
evidence totally improbablises the version reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.