LexSTATE OF U.P. versus SHOBHANATH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 9 S.C.R. 985 .... ... STATE OF U.P. A '• v. SHOBHANATH AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2002) MAY 8, 2009 8 [OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM ~- SHARMA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c Sections 147, 148, 302 rlw 302 - Conviction and sentence by the trial court - Set aside by the High Court and the accused acquitted - Correctness of - Held: In view of the facts and evidence on record, High Court was not right in acquitting the accused - Order of acquittal passed by High D -#. Court set aside - Order of conviction by trial court restored . .# The trial court convicted the respondents under Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment under E various Sections. The High Court acquitted the respondents. Hence ttle appeal. \, Allowing the appeal, the Court - HELD: 1. So far. as discrepanci.es between the F statements of the eye witnesses and the medical evidences as pointed out by the High Court are concerned, the same appear to be based on misreading of the evidence on record .. The incident took place at about 5 p.m. on 2.11.1981. It YI.as the month of November, G ~. but at 5 p.m., there would be still day light. It has also come , in evidence that the deceased had gone to Gauriganj Bazaar alongwith PW-1 as it was a market day. In a market day people usually go to the market and therefore - 985 H 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R >- A presence of PW-1 with deceased on that particular day +- also appears to be natural. [Para 18] [994-A-C] ... 2. In the post mortem examination, five injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Said injuries found B in the post mortem examination when compared with the injuries recorded in the injury report, it would be establiShed .. that all the injuries are similar in nature. $0 far as Inquest Report is concerned, the same is prepared by the police who are not experts like the doctors and . c therefore no such weightage could be given on the Inquest Report. It is also settled law that Inquest Report cannot be treated as a piece of admissible evidence. One of the main grounds for acquitting the accused respondents by the High Court was alleged discrepancies .. , D in the aforesaid reports which this Court feels is based _on misreading of evidence and misappreciation. [Para 21] [994-G-H; 995-A-B] .k ... 3.1. PW-1, the informant who was the son of the deceased in his statement has clearly stated in detail as E to how the incident has taken place and as to why he did not intervene when his father was being assaulted by the said accused persons. He has stated that he could not immediately get any mode of conveyance to take his J father to the Police Station or to the hospital and he had - F to wait for some time for getting a conveyance to enable him to shift his father to the Police Station which they reached at about 6.30 p.m. when report was recorded. The victim was examined in the Primary Health Centre at about 7.15 p.m. i.e. within 45 minutes of the incident being G reported to the Police. That being so, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay either in reporting the ~- incident to the police or taking the victim to the hospital. "' [Para 23] [995-D-F] 3.2. The High Court has doubted the entire H prosecution case on the ground of the aforesaid delay - STATE OF U.P. v. SHOBHANATH AND ORS . 987 .... .., of about an hour in reporting the incident to the Police. A But, it is proved and established on record that the entire incident as it happened was mentioned in the First Information Report wherein the name of the ey_e- witnesses were also mentioned. The informant examined himself as PW-1. He narrated the entire incident as it B happened on the day of occurrence and he was cross- .... ' examined at length, but his evidence could not be shaken. He had also explained the circumstances in which he has not been assaulted by the accused persons. He also stated in his deposition that he had not c taken any such step to_ catch hold any of such accused persons on account of fear and also because he did not ~- have any weapon in his hands. Further, he has categorically stated that he raised alarm to save his father from the assault by accused persons. The said evidence D ... of PW-1 appears to be cogent and natural. The same also Jo. gets corroborated by the evidence of other two eye witnesses namely PW-3 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.