STATE OF U.P. versus JAI PRAKASH

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1090 · Decided: 20-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

l 
A 
STATEOFU.P. 
>: ~· 
l'. 
JAi PRAKASH 
JUNE 20, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860---ss. 302, 364 & 201-Recovery of dead body from 
well-Deceased last seen in company of Respondent-Respondent allegedly 
c had animosity towards family of deceased-Conviction of Respondent by 
Trial Court-Set aside by High Court in appeal-On facts, held: Scenario 
presented by prosecution not natural and improbable-In view of the nature 
of the evidence tendered by.. prosecution, High Court right in acquitting 
Respondent-Appeal against acquittal-Duty of Appellate Court. 
D 
The dead body of PW3's son aged 7 years was recovered from a well. 
Deceased was last seen in the company of Respondent. Respondent allegedly 
had animosity towards the family of deceased. Trial Court convicted 
~-
Respondent under Sections 302, 364 & 201 IPC. High Court set aside the 
conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the 
evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of 
acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence 
of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which 
F runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if 
}· 
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to 
"" 
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is 
favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of 
the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage 
G of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from 
the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, 
a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where 
the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether 
>-' 
any of the accused really committed any offence or not. 
jPara 6111093-G; 1094-A, Bl 
H 
1090 
-
-f 
STATE OF U.P. \'.JAi PRAKASH 
1091 
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh. (2002) 2 Supreme A 
567, relied on. 
1.2. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the 
appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are 
compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment 
is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been 
unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for 
interference. [Para 6) (1094-B, CJ 
· 
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1973) 
B 
SC 2622; Ramesh Babula! Doshiv. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 Supreme 167; C 
Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 3 Supreme 320; Raj Kishore Jha 
v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 7 Supreme 152; State of Punjab v. Karnail 
Singh, (2003) 5 Supreme 508 and State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr., 
(2003) 7 Supreme 17, relied on. 
2. In the instant case the scenario presented by the prosecution does D 
not appear to be natural. Prosecution case for establishing motive was that 
the accused was harassing PW-3 and had been rebuked for that It was also 
stated that on several occasions accused wanted to sexually assaµlt PW-8 and 
to ensure that she is not left alone, the deceased was asked to accompany her. 
In this background it is improbable and unnatural as rightly held by the High 
Court that PW-3 would permit deceased to go with the accused and would not E 
take any precaution when she claimed to have seen the deceased in the 
company of the accused. Evidence of PW-4 is also not acceptable. His version 
in Court was that the accused was carrying the deceased on a bicycle. He did . 
not say so during investigation. In view of the nature of the evidence tendered 
by the prosecution, the High Court was right in directing acquittal of the F 
respondent. [Paras 7 and 8) (1094-E, F, Gj 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order ~ated of the 27.04.2000 of the High Court G 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. A. No. 2633 of 1980. 
Sahdev Singh, Vikas Bansal, San jay Kr. Singh and Anuvrat Sharma for 
the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
OR ARIJIT PASA VAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. dire
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.