STATE OF U.P. versus SMT. NOORIE @ NOOR JAHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 26-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
SMT. NOORIE @ NOOR JAHAN AND ORS. 
MARCH 26, 1996 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 147, 148, 3021149 and 201/Sll. 
Convicllon under--Validity of 
• Evidence-Climinal Triaf-Eye witnesses-Assessment and evaluation 
of evidence--Principles fo,-.Duty of Court to avoid conjecture and fanciful 
speculation. 
Respondents N, I, Rand B were prosecuted under sections 147, 148, 
302/149 and 201/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegation against 
them was that they along with some unknown person murdered R with 
knives and lathis. The prosecution case was that deceased R had gone to 
his tubewell ai 10.30 A.M. on 25.2.1975 for getting the same repaired 
E through a mechanic, PW 2. As he did noi come home to take his lunch till 
2.30 P.M. his nephew PW·l went to call his uncle for food. When both of 
them were returning respondent N stopped the deceased on. the way and 
started talking to him. In the meantime the three other respondents along 
with two unknown persons came armed with knives and lathis and started 
F assaulting the deceased. While the deceased was being ·assaulted, respon· 
dent N was standing. PW-2 who followed the deceased and PW-1 soon 
reached the spot and saw the occurrence. N then left the place of occur· 
rence while the other three respondents dragged the dead body towards 
the grove and threw it into a pit. 
G 
Out of nine witnesses examined by prosecution, PWs·l, 2 and 3 were 
eye witnesses. PW·l witnessed the occurrence as he was accompanying the 
deceased. The evidence or PW·2 was that afier repairing the tubewell when 
he was returning home he heard the shouting of PW·l and on reaching the 
place of occurrence he saw. that deceased had fallen down and I, B and R 
H were assaulting the deceased with knives. 
886 
\" 
\ ' 
STATEv. SMT.NOORIE@NOORJAHAN 
887 
Relyi~g upon the ~estiinony. of three eye wi~nesses the Trial .Conrt A 
, 
held that the prosecution has _been able to establish the charges beyond 
reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced .l\11. the ·accused 
persons. On appeal the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence 
holding that (i) it was not establis.hedthat the;uurder had been witnessed 
by the three witnesses;: (ii) PW-2 c.ould not have reached the place of 
occurrence simultane~usly with PW-1 and the deceased since he had to B. 
screw one bolt and lock the tube-well which in the process would have taken · 
atleast five minutes; alid (iii) PW·3 could not h_ave ~een N cl~arly froni · 
the }ilace_.of occurrence. .. . . . 
, In appeal to this Court on the question whether the testimony of the C 
tht~ eyeowitnesses was reliable : 
. 
Allowing the appeal in part, this Court 
HELD : 1~ The order of _acquittal passed by the High Court so far as 
respondent N is concerned is confirmed. _There is not an iota of material . D 
on record to indicate any prior . meeting of N with the other accused 
persons nor is there any material to implicate N in any' way with the 
~ occurrence. N has not been -assigned any'role in the assault of the deceased. 
. Therefore, the order acquitting N cannot be interfered with. But the order 
of acquittal in respect of _other accused petSons is set aside and their E 
conviction. and sentence ls confirmed. [893-E-F] 
2. While assessing and evaluating the evidence of eye witnesses the · 
court must adhere to two principles, namely.whether in the circumstances 
of the .case it was possible for the eye witness. t.o be present at the scene 
._. · and whether there .is anything inherently improbable or unreliable. The F 
High Court has failed to observed the aforesaid principfos and in fact has 
mis-appreciated the evidence which has caused gross miscarriage of jus• 
-~ 
tlee. Credibility of a witness has to be decided .by referring to his evidence 
and finding_ out how be had fared in cross-examination and what impres. 
sion is created by his evidence taken in other context of the case and not G 
by.enteringJnto realm of conjecture and speculation. [893-B•C] 
".,)''. 
r'!'.'. 
3. The evidence of PWs 1; 2 ~J!d 3 is consistent with. one another so 
far as the place of occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon of assault 
used by the accused persons, the fact of dragging of the dead body of the 
deceased from the place to the grove is concerned. Nothing has been H 
888 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS 
[1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A brought out in their cross-examination to impeach their t

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