LexSTATE OF U.P. versus PUNNI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 85 STATE OF U.P. A v. PUNNI AND ORS. (Crl. A. No. 463 of 2001) JANUARY 4, 2008 B [C.K. THAKKER AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] :- Penal Code, · 1860: ss. 399 and 402 - Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity - On information received, police party reached the site with villagers -Arrest of 6 persons c - Recovery of unlicenced firearms, cartridges, and other weapons from them - Conviction by trial court under ss.399 and 402 and s.27 of Arms Act - Acquittal by High Court on grounds of discrepancies in evidence of witnesses and non- examination of relevant witnesses and fact that accused were D caught without resistance from their side - On appeal, Held: Order of High Court was on consideration of entire material on record and evidence adduced - Thus, no interference warranted in exercise of power under Art. 136 of Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Arms Act, 1959 - E s.27. Evidence: Discrepanqies in evidence of witnesses - Non- examination of relevant witnesses - Effect of-· Criminal Trial. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.374 and 386 - j Appeal against conviction - Interference by'High Court - F Scope of. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-Acquittal by High Court - Scope of interference. The prosecution case was that on receiving the G information regarding assembly of a gang of dacoits in a certain grove in order to commit dacoity, the police party including the Station Officer and an A.S.I. along with some viitagers reached the said place. While they were waiting 85 -....: H 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A there, some persons entered the grove. From their > conversation, the police party and the witnesses were said to have been convinced that the assembled persons were dacoits and had assembled there to commit dacoity. The S.O. then commanded them to surrender their weapons. B A V.L.P. shot was fired by the police, whereupon these persons started running away. The police party arrested 6 persons while 3 managed to escape. The arrested persons were questioned and they revealed their names to the police. On search, unlicenced firearms, live c cartridges and some other weapons were recovered from their possession. The chik report was prepared in accordance with the directions given by the S.O. and a case under ss.399 and 402 IPC was registered against the accused. Before the trial court, the stand of the D accused was that they were falsely implicated in the case; that the witnesses and Thakurs took ·~egar' from them and when they declined they were falsely implicated in connivance with the police. ' The trial court, relying on the evidence of the two E prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1, the ASI and PW-2, convicted the six accused for the offences under ss. 399 and 402 IPC and s. 27 of the Arms Act. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence the present appeal. F· Dismissing the appeal, the Court ..... HELD: 1. The High Court was justified in setting aside the order of conviction and passing an order of acquittal in appeal. While doing so, the High Court has given due reasons after considering the entire materials and the G evidence on record. It has also given reasons as to why the non-examination of the S.O. and the 1.0. was fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court was justified in holding that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the case made out under ss.399 and H 402 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and to examine the STATE OF U.P. v. PUNNI AND ORS. 87 S.O. and the 1.0. for unfolding the prosecution story. The A High Court correctly held that the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, on which strong reliance was placed by the trial court in order to pass the order of conviction, could not be relied upon. [Para 8) [94-F-H, 95-A] Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad AIR (1954) 8 SC 51; Ram Prasad & Ors. v. State of U.P. 1974 (3) SCC 388 \ - referred to. 2. The High Court was also justified in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution as it had failed c to examine the adjoining grove holders or land holders who were said to have been present in the grove at the time of occurrence. That apart, as was rightly pointed out by the High Court, the accused were caught on the spot without any resistance or struggle from their side. It is also D evident that the High Court had found discrepancies in the examination
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.