STATE OF U.P. versus SHEO LAL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 343 
~ 
STATE OF U.P. 
A 
II. 
SHEO LAL & ORS. 
Criminal Appeal No. 362-363 of 2002 
._, 
FEBRUARY···~2. 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
ss. 302 rlw s. 34 and s. 323 rlw s. 34, s. 354 - Murder - c 
Allegation of molestation by niece of deceased against 
accused person - Fatal injuries to deceased as also injuries 
to eye-witness - Conviction by trial court - However, acquittal 
by High Court - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable -'-
Judgment of High Court full of contradictions - There was total D 
~ 
non-application of mind - Evidence of injured eye-witnesses 
• 
cannot be discarded -Accused were not strangers to witnesses 
and as such the identification was pcssible in dark night. 
According to the prosecution case, SR and S tried 
to molest their cousin PW4. Brother of PW 4 complained 
E 
to the family of SR and S. Thereafter, at night SL, father of 
SR along with SR and S armed with weapons went to the 
/'" 
~ 
house of KP-uncle of PW4. They hurled abused and 
inflicted fatal injuries to KP. PW 1, 2, 4 and other family 
members came to the spot. PVV-2 also sustained injuries. F 
FIR was lodged. PW 1 to 4-eye witnesses were examined. 
Trial court convicted accused persons u/s. 302 r/w s. 34 
and s. 323 r/w s. 34 IPC. Accused S was also convicted u/ 
s.354 IPC. However, High Court acquitted the accused. 
Hence the present appeals. 
G 
... .. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 One of the prime reasons indicated by the 
High Court to discard the prosecution version is that in a 
343 
H 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
dark night the possibility of identification was not there. 
.. 
The source of light for identification was not mentioned 
in the FIR. There were four of the witnesses and some of 
them were injured in the incidence. PW2 was· an injured 
eye witness. His evidence has been discarded on the 
B ground that the injury sustained by him was a -typical 
bruise. The obseniations of th.e High Court show total non 
application of mind. [Para 5] [ ·3·4a.c1 
1.2 Merely because the colour of the injury was not 
c 
noted and the doctor has written that the injury was fresh, 
I 
that is no ground to discard his evidence. High. Court has 
also attached unnecessary importance to the fact that·one 
·t 
~ • . 
• 
witness stated that the assault continued _for. 8 to 1 ~ 
minutes while another said it was around three_ minutes. 
T'1e doctor's evidence was discarded on the ground that 
D his testimony was of poor quality and does not inspire 
/>--
confidence. The injury appeared to be manuf~ctured· one. 
• 
The judgment is full of contradictions. High· Court at one 
place noticed that it is improbable that the accused person 
who was ·cousin of PW 4·tried·to molest her. In the same 
E 
breath the High Court in another:place has held. that the 
accused persons to molest PW 4 at-a particular moment 
.... 
took her to the Arhar field and this-was done with her· prior 
, 
consent High Court goes further to say that there .was 
1-
. .;::_ 
no planning in the act and h·ad appeared to be chance 
F 
meeting which led to it. The absurdity .of the High Court's 
conclusions tan be gauged from· the fact that·the High 
Court found it unnatural that two girls of almost of the 
same age group were walking and as to why one of them 
would move ahead and the other would ·come behind is 
G unnatural. High Court further has held that PW 3 ·stated in 
Court that PW4 on her r~turn told him that accused· 
~ .. 
persons has teased her in ~he fiel~. High Court found fault 
with the statement on the ground that he did nottell before 
. 
. 
the police that the girl did ·not tell PW-3 -that the accused 
H persons held her hands. So far ~s the High Court's 
STATE OF U.P. V. SHEO LAL & ORS. 
345 
t 
conclusions that there was non-mention of the source of A 
light in the FIR it needs to be noted that the accused 
persons were not strangers to the witnesses. They were 
closely related. Therefore, High Court's judgment is 
clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The judgment of 
the trial court is restored. [Paras 6 and 9] [ 349-A, B, C, D, 
B 
E; 350-F] 
Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar 1998 (9) SCC 238; 
Bharosi v. State of M.P 2002 (7) SCC 239; S. Sudershan 
Reddy v. State of A. P 2006 ( 10) SCC 163 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
c 
1998(9) sec 238 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
2002(1) sec 239 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
2006(1 O) sec 163 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
D 

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