STATE OF U.P versus NAWAB SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 03-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
NA WAB SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 2004 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 300-Murder-Acquittal-Appeal against-Accused persons 
C came to the house of deceased and fired shots at him which resulted in his 
death-Post-mortem report showed that deceased died of gunshot '"injuries"-
Trial court convicted accused persons-However, High Court set aside the 
conviction on the mistaken belief that deceased suffered only one gunshot 
injury-Correctness of-Held: The medical report showed '"injuries" meaning 
D thereby more than one injury-The High Court acquitted the accused persons 
without analysing the evidence on record-Hence, judgment of High Court 
unsustainable-Acquittal set aside. 
The respondents-accused persons were involved in two murder cases. 
The deceased was a witness in one of them and was constantly being 
E pressurized not to depose in that case by the respondents. On the fateful 
night, the respondents came to the house of the deceased and shot at him 
with a pistol resulting in his death. The post-mortem report indicated that 
the deceased had died of gunshot injuries . 
F 
. The trial court found the respondents guilty of an offence under 
Section 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo 
life imprisonment. However, the High Court concluded that it was a case 
of 'hit and run', and that the deceased had suffered only one gunshot 
injury. Accordingly, it acquitted the respondents. Hence the appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court wrongly laid emphasis that only one 
fire injury was caused. The medical report shows that the death took place 
because of 'injuries' meaning thereby more than one injury. Keeping in 
view the nature of the injuries suffered by the decease?, the same could 
H 
52 
\ 
'""" 
. ' 
1·-
4 , 
I 
..
~ 
STATE OF U.P. v. NA WAB SINGH 
53 
not have also been caused by one shot. 161-G, H; 62-Aj 
A 
1.2. The High Court has not assigned cogent or sufficient reasons 
for disagreeing with the findings of the trial court. It arrived at certain 
conclusions without .analysing the evidences on record. It is based on 
surmises and conjectures. 162-DI 
B 
1.3. The High Court acquitted the accused persons without 
analysing the evidence on record and in that view of the matter, the 
impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 162-FI 
.,._, 
Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh, 120031 2 Supreme 155, relied on . 
c 
f 
2. The Trial Court upon critical examination of the evidence of the 
eyewitnesses had rightly concluded that they were truthful witnesses and 
the respondents were present at the time of occurrence. Merely because 
the witnesses happened to be the relatives of the deceased by itself cannot 
be a ground to reject their testimonies. In view of the fact that the D 
occurrence took place at the dead of night, they were natural witnesses 
and were supposed to be present at the place of occurrence. 162-G, HI 
3.1. It is not a case where two reasonable views arc possible. It is 
also not a case where the findings recorded by the High Court arc fully 
; 
supported by the evidence on record. The High Court proceeded absolutely E 
on a wrong premise that there had been only one fire injury, which is 
contrary to the records. 163-F, G] 
State of U.P. v. Premi, 12003 J 2 SCR 266, relied on. 
3.2. The High Court being a court of first appeal was required to F 
consider and re-appreciate the evidence but it failed to do so and proceeded 
.. 
to dispose of the appeal on general observations, which is impermissible . 
163-G] 
Narendera Nath Khaware v. Parasnath Khaware, (2003) 5 SCC 488, 
relied on. 
G 
4.1. It is well settled that when the reasoning of the High Court is 
~ 
perverse, this Court may set aside the judgment of acquittal and restore 
-
the judgment of conviction and sentence upon the accused. 164-A) 
Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha, JT (2003) 8 SC 404, relied on. H 
..,.. 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
4.2. It is further well"settled that there is no embargo on the 
appellate court to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal 
is based. 164-A, Bl 
Chanakya Dhibar v. State of West Bengal, (2003) 8 Supreme 884; 
Surinder Singh v. State of UP., JT (2003) Supp. 1 SC 226; Corle S. Naidu 
B v. State of A.P .. (2003) 8 Supreme 562 and Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal, (2003) 
7 Supreme 780, relied on. 
4.3. The High Court went wrong in passing a judgment of acquittal 
reversi

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