STATE OF U.P. versus PREMI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 20-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
PREMI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2003 
B 
. [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Sections 34, 302, 304 and 452:. 
Murder and other offences-Conviction by Trial Court-Reversed by 
C High Court doubting the testimony of prosecution witness on contradiction 
and improvements in the evidence, and in identification of accused as a,lso 
difference between ocular and medical evidence~n appeal, Held, since 
statement of husband of the deceased regarding availability of light at the 
time and place of incident was corrobr;11:ated by Investigating Officer, conclusion 
D as to absence of light and doubting the. identification/recognition of accused 
by the prosecution witness could not be drawn-When improvements and 
contradictions are minor and natural, truthfolness of the evidence/witness 
cannot be doubted-Testimony of evidence of medical officer must not be read . 
in isolation but should be read as a whole-Evidence Act, 1872. 
E 
Appeal against acquittal-Power of the Supreme Court to interfere-
Limitation-Held: when miscarriage of justice results due to erroneous 
appreciation of evidence by the High Court, it is necessary to interfere. 
According to the prosecution, accused entered the house of the 
deeeased at mid-night and hit on the head of her husband with a pistol. 
F When the deceased tried to save her husband, accused hit her with the 
butt of the pistol as well. On hearing cries of the deceased and other family 
members, neighbours came to their rescue, whereupon accused fled away. 
The deceased succumbed to her injuries O!J the next day. In the meanwhile, 
FIR was lodged by the husband of the deceased. Trial Court convicted 
and sentenced the accused, his brothers and father, for the offences under 
G Sections 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34 and under Section 452 IPC. On appeal, 
High Court set aside conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
During the pendency of the appeal, one of the accused died; appeal thus 
abated against him. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
266 
STATE OF U.P. v. PREM! 
267 
. 
HELD: 1.1. The testimony of PW3 (husband of the deceased) clearly A 
e 
f 
shows that the electric connection was made available less than a year ago 
' 
and PW3 was referring the date of the incident and not the date when his 
statement was recorded. PW3 also stated that the electric light was on at 
the time of occurrence of crime. By no stretch _of imagination anyone can 
come to" the conclusion that there was no electric connection in the house B 
of the deceased. The mention of the electric bulbs at various places was 
also made in the site plan prepared by the Police. Thus, the High Court 
committed grave illegality in coming to the conclusion that in the absence 
of light, the assailants could not be recognized. (270-D-F] 
1.2. High Court has completely misread the FIR and come to the c 
conclusion that the factum of the respondents having caught hold of PW3 
has not been mentioned in the FIR. In fact, FIR specifically states that 
the respondents caught hold of PW3. The High Court seems to have made 
too much of the minor contradictions about the non-mention of the dandas 
in the FIR. The contradictions and improvements, according to the High 
Court, are the result of darkness, in view of the absence of the electric D 
connection. This is a finding which is not at all sustainable. The finding 
of the High Court that testimony of P~3 is uncorroborated is again 
unsustainable. PW4, who is deposed to have seen the respondents coming 
out of the house of PW3, was living in the same compound. His name was 
mentioned in the FIR as well. He is a natural witness of the occurrence. E 
Thus a well reasoned judgment of the Sessions Court on critical analysis 
of the evidence was reversed by the High Court on consideration of 
improvements and contradictions which are minor and natural and rather 
--
go to show the truthfulness of the evidence. [270-G, H; 271-A, B] 
1.3. High Court took the view that the injuries were inflicted by a F 
sharp edged weapon and has placed strong reliance on the testimony of 
PW8, a medical officer. According to another medical officer, PWI, who 
--
' 
conducted the postmortem, injuries must have been caused with a blunt 
I 
weapon. His categorical testimony is that none of these injuries was incised 
I 
wound caused with a sharp weapon; and. that it becomes difficult to say 
G 
whether a wound on a bony part is lacerated or incised one. PW9, a senior

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