STATE OF U.P. versus MUNI RAM & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 26-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
[2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 120 
STATE OF U.P. 
V. 
MUNI RAM & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 909-91 O of 2002) 
OCTOBER 26, 2010 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- ss.147,323,3081304, 3081149 -
C Cattle Trespas~ Act, 1871 - s. 24 - Prosecution under -
Cross-version of incident given by the complainant and the 
victim parties - Conviction by trial court - Acquitted by High 
Court - On appeal, held: Order of acquittal affirmed -
Supreme Court in its jurisdiction under Article 136, against 
D an order of acquittal, normally, would not interfere with finding 
of fact unless there has been miscarriage of justice - In the 
instant case High Court merely corrected the omissions 
committed by trial court in convicting the accused - Order of 
High Court has not led to miscarriage of justice - High Court 
E has taken a possible view which could legitimately be taken 
on the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence -
Constitution of India 1950 - Article 136. 
The respondent-accused were prosecuted for 
having caused death of two persons and for causing 
F injuries to others. The prosecution case was that PW-2 
noticed that cattle of accused-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 
had trespassed his field, and he drove them away and 
was taking them to the cattle pound. At this accused-
respondent Nos. 1-5, armed with 'lathis', attacked PW-2. 
G Hearing the hue and cry raised by PW-2, his sister-in-law 
'S', his son 'R' and his brother reached the spot. They 
were also assaulted by the accused. Other witnesses 
were also assaulted. All the five witnesses were medically 
H 
120 
STATE OF U.P. v. MUNI RAM & ORS. 
121 
examined. Two of the injured eye-witnesses succumbed 
A 
to the injuries. 
The defence gave a cross-version of the incident. 
They alleged that the complainant party was the 
aggressor. Both sides suffered injuries. They had also 
got their injuries examined and when they went to lodge 
the report to police station, they were arrested. They 
produced four defence witnesses to support their 
version. DW-1 produced the application sent to the police 
containing defence version. 
Trial court convicted all the accused of offences 
punishable u/ss. 147 and 323 IPC and u/s. 24 of Cattle 
Trespass Act, 1871. Accused 1-4 were also convicted of 
offence punishable u/s 304/34. Accused 'B' was acquitted 
B 
c 
of the offence punishable u/s. 308/304 IPC and the other 
D 
accused were also acquitted u/ss. 308 and 149 IPC. The 
accused appealed against their conviction whereas the 
complainants challenged acquittal of respondent No. 5. 
The High Court, acquitted all the accused, and dismissed 
the criminal revision filed by the complainants. The 
E 
instant appeals were filed by the State. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In an appeal by special leave under Article 
136 of the Constitution of India against an order of 
F 
acquittal passed by the High Court, the Court would not 
normally interfere with a finding of the fact based on 
appreciation of evidence, unless the approach of the 
High Court is clearly erroneous, perverse or improper and 
there has been a grave miscarriage of justice. In the 
G 
instance case, the High Court has merely corrected the 
omissions in the appreciation of evidence committed by 
the trial court in convicting the respondents. The High 
Court has taken a view which is plausible as well as 
possible. [Paras 19 and 20] [131-G-H; 132-A-B] 
H 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
2. The High Court upon a very careful appraisal of 
the entire evidence notices that this being a case of 
cross-versions, it was the duty of the court to ascertain 
which of the two versions were genuine and probable. 
Taking up the evidence of PW-1, the High Court 
B concluded that the very presence of this witness is 
dubious. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the High 
Court has taken into consideration, the inconsistent 
versions of PW-2 and PW-3. It is also noticed that the 
name of PW-1 is not even mentioned in the FIR as a 
c witness. In view of the very presence of PW-1 being 
shaky, the High Court concluded that in these 
circumstances, no authenticity can be attached to the 
version given by him in the FIR. The High Court further 
noticed that PW-1 had tried to cover up the lacunae in the 
0 
FIR. Subsequently, he admitted in cross-examination that 
some portion of the FIR was narrated on the information 
given by PW-2 and PW-3. He was also unable to giv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.