STATE OF U.P. versus NARESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 1176 · Decided: 08-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 1176 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
NARESH AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 2006) 
MARCH 08, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302134, 307134 and 379134 -
Murder of one person and serious gunshot injuries to another 
C - Conviction of accused-respondents by trial court - Order 
reversed by High Court - Justificatio11 of- Held: Not Justified 
- The High Court gravely erred in discarding the evidence of 
PWs merely because they were relatives of the deceased -
It further fell into error in not giving due weightage to 
o deposition of a stamped witness, who had suffered gun shot 
injuries -
The High Court made too much of insignificant 
discrepancies, which were made the basis for acquittal -
Judgment of trial court convicting the respondents restored. 
E 
Evidence - Witnesses - Related witness - Appreciation 
of - Held: A mere relationship cannot be a factor to affect 
credibility of a witness - Evidence of a witness cannot be 
discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the 
victim of the offence. 
F 
Evidence - Witnesses - Injured witness - Appreciation 
of - Held: The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a 
special status in law - The evidence of the injured witness 
should be relied upon unless there are grounds for rejection 
of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and 
G discrepancies therein. 
H 
Evidence - Discrepancies in depositions of witnesses -
Effect of - Held: In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies 
are bound to occur in depositions of witnesses due to normal 
1176 
• 
STATE OF U.P. v. NARESH AND ORS. 
1177 
errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse A 
of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror 
at the time of occurrence - Where the omissions amount to 
a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the 
truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make 
material improvement while deposing in the court, such 
B 
evidence cannot be safe to rely upon - However, minor 
contradictions, 
inconsistencies, 
embellishments or 
improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core 
of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on 
which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety - Mere c 
marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be 
dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations 
of the statement made by the witness earlier - The omissions 
which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go 
to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the 
0 
prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable 
to be discredited. 
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Held: In an appeal 
against an order of acquittal, the Court has to scrutinize the 
facts of the case cautiously - Every accused is presumed to 
E 
be innocent unless his guilt is proved - While dealing with a 
judgment of acquittal, an appellate court must consider the 
entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to 
whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise 
unsustainable - Criminal jurisprudence. 
F 
According to the prosecution, on 16-10-1979 
morning respondent no.1 abused and assaulted PWS 
when the latter stopped him from digging a passage from 
the fields of PW1; that thereupon PWS lodged a complaint G 
in police station against respondent no.1 at about 9:30 
a.m.; that PWS was accompanied to the police station by 
PW1 and their uncle 'SR'; that'PWS and '$R' had a rifle 
and a gun with them; that later in the day when PWS, PW1 
and 'SR' were returning to their village, at about 5 p.m. 
H 
1178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A the four accused-respondents emerged out from the 
bushes armed with gun and country made pistols, hurled 
abuses at them and opened fire due to which 'SR' died 
on the spot while PW5 was seriously injured, though 
PW1 escaped unhurt. The accused persons also 
B allegedly snatched away the gun, rifle and ammunitions 
carried by the victims and ran away from the place of 
occurrence. 
The trial court convicted the accused-respondents 
under sections 302/34, 307/34 and 379/34 of IPC and 
C sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court, 
however, acquitted the respondents. 
II) the is;istant appeals, the appellant-State contended 
that the High Court erred in reversing the well reasoned 
D judgment of the trial court giving unwarranted attention 
to minor contradictions on t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.