LexSTATE OF U.P. versus KRISHNA GOPAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF U.P.
v.
KRISHNA GOPAL & ANR.
AUGUST 12, 1988
[A.P. SEN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India 1950: Article 136-Supreme Court does not
interfere with findings of fact reached by High Court unless vitiated by
serious errors.
The respondents were put on trial for offences under section 302
read with section 34, IPC. At the trial the prosecution mainly relied on
the eye-witnesses and the statement of the deceased recorded by the
Investigating Officer, which was sought to be used as a dying declara-
tion. The defence assailed the credibility of the eye-witnesses as well as
the authenticity of the dying declaration. The Sessions Judge accepted
the prosecution ~ase that notwithstanding the somewhat serious injuries
inflicted on him, the deceased was in a position to instant the prepara-
tion of the First Information Report and to make the statement before
the Investigating Officer. The respondents were convicted and sen-
tenced to imprisonment for life.
1
In the appeal, the High Court, on re-assessment of the evidence,
accepted the defence pleas, allowed the appeal and ordered acquittal.
Before this Court it was urged by the State that the High Court
A
B
c
D
E
fell into a serious error in its assumptive predication that injuries on the
person on deceased were such as were likely to render him unconscious
F
immediately and incapacitate him from making the dying declaration.
It was accordingly urged that because the High Court had reversed the
conviction on conjectures and not on sound reasoning, this Court
should interfere.
On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that this Court should
G
not interfere under Article 136 even if two views were possible on the
evidence and the one in favour of the prosecution could be reached on
reappreciation of the evidence as long as the view opted for could not be
said to be altogether impossible on the evidence.
Allowing the appeal partly and remitting the case to the High
H
391
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A Court for disposal on merits afresh, it was,
HELD: (I) It was, no doubt, true that as a self-made rule of
practice, this Court did not interfere with the findings of fact reached
by the High Court, but judicial pronouncements tnemselves qualify this
rule and justify interference where serious errors of assumption
B vitiated the findings. [398A]
c
State of V.P v. Jashoda Nandan Gupta, AIR 1974SC 753; State of
Punjab v. Sucha Singh. AIR 1974 SC 343; State of A.P. v. P.
Anjaneyulu, AIR 1982 SC 1598; State of U.P. v. Pussu, [1983] 3 SCR
294; Shivaji Sahebrao Bopade v. State of Maharashtra, [1974] I SCR
489 referred to.
(2) The principles laid down regarding the scope of the powers of
the appellate Court in appeals against acquittal did not detract from the
platitude of the Courts powers to review and reappreciate the evidence
if the order of acquittal on review of the evidence was found to be
D grossly erroneous. These powers were not different from or inconsistent
with those that the appellate Court had in an appeal against conviction;
the difference was more in the manner of approach and the perspective
rather than in the content of the power: The expressions "very
substant_ial reasons" etc. used in several pronouncements which tend to
qualify these powers did no more than to convey these principles. There
E
was thus no immunity to an erroneous order from a strict appellate
scrutiny. But the appellate court wherever it found justification to
reverse an acquittal must record reasons why it found lower court
wrong. [400E-H]
Shea Swarup's case, 61 Indian Appeals 398; Noor Mohammad's
F
case AIR 1945 PC· 151; Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961
SC 715; Chandra Kanta Debnath v. State of Tripura, AIR 1986 SC 606,
referred to.
(3) Eye witnesses account would require a careful independent
assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be
G adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical-
evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibi-
lity. [403B]
-
( 4) What degree of probability amounted to 'proof' was an exer-
cise particular to each case. The conceptes of probability, and the
H degrees of it, could not obviously be expressed in terms of units to
STATE OF U.P. vc KRISHNA GOPAL {VENKATACHALIAH, J.] 393
be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units consti-
tuted proof beyond reasonable doubt. There wExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.