STATE OF U.P. versus PREETAM & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 31-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 123 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
PREETAM & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2006) 
MARCH 31, 2011 
[B.SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3021149, s. 3071149 ands. 3231 
149 - Armed accused chased two persons and beat them to 
C 
death - Trial court convicting the accused-respondents under 
the provisions of Penal Code - However, High Court acquitted 
all the respondents - Interference with - Held: Not called for 
- The cumulative effect of the infirmities in the prosecution 
case and the probabilities of the plea of self defence renders 
D 
the prosecution case doubtful - Conclusions reached by the 
High Court cannot be said to be either perverse or based on 
no evidence - Thus, the High Court recorded plausible as well 
as probable conclusion - Respondents entitled to benefit of 
~~t 
E 
According to the prosecution, respondent Nos. 1-5, 
armed with axes and lathis chased two persons and beat 
them to death. On hearing the voice of the victims, PW1 
and his brother-PW~ reached the place of the incident 
and were also assaulted. They suffered simple injuries. 
F 
Other witnesses also reached the place of occurrence. 
PW1 lodged an FIR the next day. The respondents also 
sustained minor injuries. The prosecution witnesses 
were examined. PW4 and PWS were declared hostile. The 
trial court convicted the respondents under the G 
provisions of the Penal Code and sentenced accordingly. 
The High Court set aside the order of conviction and 
acquitted all the raspo1_1dents. Therefore, the appellant-
State filed the instant appeal. 
123 
H 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the .Court 
HELD: 1.1 On a thorough re-examination of the 
evidence, the High Court discarded the evidence of each 
witness. The High Court disbelieved the prosecution 
8 story as projected through PW1. He had stated that 'G' 
and 'C' had engaged in a "marpeet" with 'P' at place 'DH'. 
Both sides had assaulted each other. 'G' and 'C' had run 
towards the village. They were followed upto the field of 
'H' by the respondents and were assaulted. This alleged 
incident at place 'DH' was sought to be proved by PW3. 
C However, the High Court disbelieved her evidence on the 
ground that she was unlikely to be present at the scene 
of the incident. Her name did not figure in the FIR. She 
had just supported her father and uncle entirely. She had 
improved her version; which did not even tally with the 
D version given by the injured, when they were examined. 
Similarly, the High Court noticed the prosecution version 
that 'G' and 'C' have been assaulted by a number of 
persons. They were supposed to have been assaulted by 
three of the respondents, who were armed with axes. 
E Others were using lathis. But the postmortem report 
shows that none of the deceased had suffered any 
injuries which could have been caused by lathis. 
Therefore, the High Court concluded that the ocular 
version has been contradicted by the medical evidence. 
F [Para 15] [133-D-H] 
1.2. The High Court noticed that there seems to be 
no plausible explanation about the delay in registration 
of the FIR. The conclusion reached by the High Court is 
G that there was a delay of 17 hours between the alleged 
occurrence and the registration of the FIR. The only 
explanation given is that due to the fear of the 
respondents, the family of the complainants kept sitting 
near the dead body. They did not even call for a doctor 
or medical assistance. The High Court disbelieved the 
H sequence of events leading to the registration of the FIR. 
-
-
STATE OF U.P. v. PREETAM & ORS. 
125 
It is noticed that according to PW1, the Chowkidar of the 
A 
village had arrived at the spot soon after the incident. 
Even his help was not taken for the registration of the FIR. 
Noticing the technical terminology used in the FIR, the . 
High Court expressed the opinion that FIR was not 
scribed by the rustic. villager 'PN'. It was scribed by a B 
professional, PW 7. It is further noticed that even though 
PW3 was stated to be the only witness to prove as to 
how the fight originated and where, yet her name was not 
mentioned in the FIR. On the other hand, the two ladies, 
daughter of the informant and wife of 'B'·PW2, were c 
withheld by the prosecµtion thoughaccording to the FIR, 
they had witnessed the incident thaf took place in the 
field of ~H'. The prosecution also withheld 'T'-PW 5 and 
'J', whose names had also been m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.