STATE OF U.P. versus P.A. MADHU

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 17-07-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
1 
A 
STATE OF U.P. 
v 
P.A. MAOHU 
17 July, 1984 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI 
MUKHARJI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Art. 136-Supreme Court-When woufd Interfere 
·with the appreciation of evidence by the High Cpurt. 
B 
c 
Code ofCrim;nal Procedure-S. 154-FJR-Cryptlc information on phone 
D 
to police-Cannot be treated as FIR-Being first in point oftims make no diffe-
rence-Name of assailant not mentioned in telephonic message-Whether 
discredits prosecution case . 
The respondent, Secretary of the workers union of a construction 
company, D.W. 1, Vice-President of the Union, the deceased and P.Ws. S and 
7. officers of the company and P.W. 6, standing counsel of the company were 
all coming out of the office of an industrial tribunal after filing their written 
statements in a dispute raised by· the workers. The prosecution cas~ was 
that at the main gate of the tribunal's building the respondent suddenJy star-
ted firing from a pistol and shot dead the deceased. 
As firing was going on, 
a telephonic message conveying the fact that gunshots were being fired was 
sent to the nearby police station. On receipt of the telephonic message the 
police arrived ;t the sp,t, seized the pistol and took the respondent and some 
of the witnes4'es to the police station where a formal FIR was registered. The 
Session.i Judge conv.icted the accused under s. 302 IPC ands. 25 (1) (a) of 
Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment and one Years' 
rigorous imprisonment respectively. On appeal the High Court reversed the. 
judgment of the Sessions Judge. 
The High Court observed that if P.W. 7 
had given the telephonic message, as stated by D.W. 1, he would have men .. 
tioned the name ·or the assailant because he was a fu11-f1edged eye-witness but 
since his name had not been mentioned it was the strongest possible circum-
stance to discredit the prosecution case. Hence this appeal. 
A11owing the appeal, 
HELD ; Normally this Court does not interfere against the judgment of 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
0 
B 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] 1 s.c.R. 
~he High ?curt pur~I! on. appreciatio'n of evidence, But this Court would 
I~terfere with the drc1s1on ot the High Court if there appear to be very special 
c1~cumstances Which have been ei:her overlooked or not considered by the 
High Court or the High Court does not appear to have examined the intrinsic 
merits of the evidence of the witnesses but has proceeded to acquit the accused 
on general grounds which are wholly untenable. [5B-C) 
A cryptic information on telephone has been held by this Court to be of 
no value at all, The mere fact that the information was the first in point of 
tjme does not by itself clothe it with the character of first information report. 
Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, [1971) I SCR 599, referred to. 
In the instant case the telephonic message was an extremely cryptic one 
and could not be regarded as a FIR in any sense of the tern1, 
The High Court has applied two different standards to assess the evi-
dence of the prosecution and that of the defence. While the High Court 
accepts the uncorroborated evidence of D. W. 1 who is as much interested in 
the dispute as the deceased, if not inore, being Vice-President of the Union 
and also in possession of the brief case of the respondent, yet it disbelieves the 
evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 mainly on the ground that they were highly interes· 
ted. (7H; SA-BJ 
The High Court completely lost sight of two important facts-(!) that 
P .Ws. 5 and 7 were high officers of the company and were not likely to 
depose falsely on a matter like this, and (2) that P.W. 6, who was the standing 
eounsel of the company and other labour cases for more than 3 decades, fully 
corroborates the evidence of P, Ws. 5 and 7. 
We have examined the evidence 
of P.Ws. 5 and 7 with very great care and caution but we are un'able to find 
anY discrepancy or defect in their evidence so as to lead any court to reject the 
same. [BE-Fl 
The finding of the High Court that it is difficult 10 believe that after the 
respondent threw the pistol he continued to remain at the spot and did not 
make any attempt to escape is also most lnnrealistic. There is clear evjdence 
of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 that after the responcent threw down the pistol he was 
surrounded by the three witnesses so that he could not e~cape. The High 
Court has failed to consider this important aspect of the matter. 
Moreover~ 
if a perscn ~ommit

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