STATE OF U.P. versus SATVEER & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 8 S.C.R. 306 · Decided: 01-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 306 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
SATVEER & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.623-624 of2008) 
JULY01, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 rlw s.34- Conviction by trial 
court-High Court ordered acquittal- State's appeal against 
acquittal - Prosecution case was that the respondents were 
indulging in Tantrism and for the said purpose killed 8 years 
D. old boy - PW-2 saw respondents taking the boy inside the 
baithak and coming out after half hour without the boy and 
going towards Chamunda Math with a thaal filled with articles 
of worship- Thereafter, PW-2 went along with another person 
inside baithak and saw the dead body of the boy in pool of 
E blood - The villagers caught hold of respondents and beat 
them up -
Trial Court held respondents guilty u/s.302 rlw 
s.34 - High Court acquitted the respondents on the ground 
that the prosecution had failed to prove their complicity in 
the offence- On State's appeal, held: There was no evidence 
F to prove presence of sole eye witness at the spot - Place 
from where he allegedly witnessed the incident was not a 
natural place where either witness resided or .carried on 
vocation - The witness also could not give reason of his 
presence at the spot and his continuing to be there for 20-25 
G minutes - The family members of the boy were not examined 
- Moreover, no blood stained clothes were recovered from 
any of (he respondents though they were allegedly to be 
authors of t;,e crime which left body of the deceased boy in a 
H 
306 
STATE OF U.P. v. SATVEER & ORS. 
307 
· pool of blood- Case against respondents not made out and A 
therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. 
Appeal: Appeal against acquittal- Scope of interference 
- Discussed - Penal Code, 1860. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. It is the case of the prosecution that the 
victim was last seen in the company of the respondents. 
The last seen theory having dimensions in terms of time 
as well place, would certainly clinch the matter if the C 
testimony of PW2 is accepted. Everything hinges on his 
testimony as he is the sole witness. The evidence of the 
sole witness thus needs to be considered with caution 
and after testing it against other material and further, such D 
evidence must inspire confidence and ought to be 
beyond suspici9n. [Paras 10, 11] [315-F; 316-C; 317-A] 
2. ·According to PW2, he was sitting on a bench in 
front of the clinic of a doctor with 'V' when he saw the 
deceased being led inside the baithak by the E 
respondents. Apart from his own testimony, nothing was 
placed on record by the prosecution wh_ich could lend 
corroboration to his own presence and the content of 
his version. First, no reason was given why PW-2 and 
'V' were sitting on the bench outside the_ clinic of the F 
doctor. Neither the doctor nor 'V' were examined. 
Beyond the testimony of the witness himself there was 
nothing to indicate whether PW2 was actually there at 
the relevanttime or not. Secondly, the place from where G 
he allegedly witnessed the occurrence was not a natural 
place where either the witness resides or carries on any 
vocation. The reason for his being there was not placed 
on record. Again the reason for his contir:iuing to be 
there for 20-25 minutes was also not spelt out. Thirdly, H 
none from the house of the deceased was examined nor 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A did PW1 throw any light as to when the deceased left 
the house and in whose company was he playing. 
Neither has the prosecution given the names of those 
children nor has anybody else been examined to say 
that he had seen· the children playing at the place in 
B question. Fourthly, there was nothing to indicate how 
far was the house of the deceased and whether that was 
the normal place where the deceased would always be 
playing. Lastly, ifthe incident created chaos in the village 
so much so that the villagers went and thrashed the 
C respondents, there was no reason why none of them 
was examined. [Para 12] [317-B-G] 
3. It is doubtful whether PW2 could be called a natural 
and truthful witness and could be completely relied upon. 
D The movements of the deceased are also not established 
to show that he was actually there as suggested by the 
witness. The assessment of the entire material has left 
many doubts and questions unanswered. Two facts, 
that the baithak was of ownership of the respondents 
E and .that the body of the decease

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