LexSTATE OF U.P. versus GURU CHARAN & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B / , // [2610] 2 S.C.R. 1110 STATE OF U.P. v. GURU CHARAN & OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 297-298 of 2002) FEBRUARY 23, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal against C acquittal - Scope of interference - Allegation of murder of two and murderous assault on one - Conviction of two accused u/s. 302134 and sentenq,ed to death, and other u/s. 307 and sentenced to life imprisonment - Acquittal by High Court - Interference with - Held: Scope of interference under Article D 136 in an appeal against acquittal is rather limited - View taken by High Court was plausible and possible one - On basis of the evidence, High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of assailants - Thus, the findings recorded by High Court does not warrant any E interference -Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 and s. 307. According to the prosecution case, RN, his son-in- law J, VK-PW 1 and N-PW 2 were traveling in a private bus. RN was carrying his licensed double barrel gun and F bandolier of cartridges. When the bus stopped on the way, S, P, GC and BP armed with weapons boarded the bus. They fired sever&I shots at RN, resulting in his death. J tried to run out of the bus but he was caught and killed by the assailants. When PW2 tried to save J, BP inflicted knife injuries on him. The driver of the bus was also G attacked with a knife. Motive for the offence was the enmity between the two parties. The trial court convicted S, P and GC uls. 302134 and sentenced to death whereas BP was convicted uls. 307 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court acquitted all the accused H 1110 '' STATE OF U.P. v. GURU CHARAN & ORS. 1111 of all the charges and rejected the Reference made by the A Sessions Judge for confirmation of death sentence awarded to S, P and GC. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. On examining the evidence as well as the B findings recorded by the courts below, the view taken by the High Court is both plausible and possible. The scope of interference in Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in an appeal against acquittal is rather limited. Applying the principles with regard to the scope of C interference by this Court under Article 136, to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the findings recorded by the High Court does not warrant any interference. [Paras 26 and 30] [1129-F-G; 1132-F] State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Banne alias Baijnath and Ors. 2009 (4) SCC 271; State of U.P. vs. Harihar Bux Singh and Anr. 1975 (3) SCC 167; State of U.P. vs. Gopi and Ors. 1980 Supp. SCC 160; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ashok Kumar and Anr. 1979 (3) SCC 1, relied on. 2.1. In its well reasoned and detailed judgment, the High Court re-examined the entire evidence. While considering the evidence of PW 1-VK, it is noticed that D E GC who is said to be the main assailant did not have any motive to commit the murder of the deceased. He was F simply a witness in the murder case against deceased RN. PW1 in the evidence had stated that GC armed with a licensed .315 bore rifle had entered the bus and fired 7-8 rounds on his uncle i.e. deceased RN; that due to the injuries his uncle died there and then, in the bus itself; G t~at his brother-in-law J immediately got down from the bus and started running in order to save himself but the respondent fired upon. him and he too was killed outside the bus; and that when PW 2 came forward to save G, H 1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A BP stabbed him with his knife. He emphatically stated that no other person received any injuries. But then it is stated that when the driver of the bus tried to move the bus he too was stabbed. It is noticed that according to the witness PW 1, he was sitting at the back of the bus. When s his uncle was being shot at, he hid behind the seat. Every other person tried to get o_ff the bus. Even people in the nearby fields ran away for fear of the assailants. The assault was so ferocious that two persons were killed, two were injured. The two injured had no enmity with the c respondents. On the other hand, PW1 was a co-accused in the murder of V, yet he suffered no injury. He made no effort to save his uncle RN. His account of the incident is so graphical that he could only do this if he was visible to the respondents. In that case, he would not have been
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.