STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus OM PAL & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 21-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
OM PAL & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal  No. 1213 of 2014)
 MARCH 21, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302/34 – Prosecution under – Of respondents-accused –
Conviction by trial court relying on the evidence of two eye-witnesses
and the complainant – Acquittal by High Court disbelieving the
witnesses – On appeal, held: High Court while appreciating the
evidence rightly disbelieved the presence of the eye-witnesses in
view of their unnatural behaviour and their contradictory statements
– FIR was lodged by the complainant on the basis of information of
one of the eye-witnesses – When the evidence of eye-witness is not
believable, evidence of complainant cannot be given credence –
Prosecution thus failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt – Acquittal giving benefit of doubt is justified.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Admittedly, the complainant-PW1 has not
witnessed the occurrence. He believed whatever PW-2 (eye-
witness) informed him and accordingly he lodged the complaint.
It is also indisputable that PW1 was inimical with the respondent
party. It is evident from the record that on the aspect of how
PW1 came to know about the incident, he made contradictory
statements. There was no  independent witness and according to
prosecution, despite the efforts made by police to record
statements from the public, no one was ready to give evidence.
As per the statement of PW1, besides PWs 2 and 3, two more
persons have also witnessed the incident. It is quite unnatural
that none of the eye-witnesses has lodged complaint, but on the
basis of information provided by PW2, PW1 lodged the complaint
believing his version. [Para 10] [100-E-G]
  [2018]  3 S.C.R. 96
96
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
97
2. On the other hand, the conduct and statements of PW2
do not inspire confidence for the reason that his depositions under
Section 161, Cr.P.C. were quite different to what he stated before
Court in his examination-in-chief. He could not even give a
satisfactory reason for his presence at the time and place of
occurrence. Furthermore, he did not choose to lodge complaint
with the police by himself even though he had witnessed the
occurrence as admittedly the complaint was lodged by PW1 on
the information provided by PW2.  Apart from that, there were
certain conflicting statements in his evidence as regards how the
deceased got injuries, and also his conduct of not making a hue
and cry and not disclosing to anyone about the occurrence. This
gives rise to suspicion on the credibility and trustworthiness of
PW2. When the evidence of PW2 itself is unbelievable and
jeopardizing the prosecution case, in no manner the evidence of
PW1 could be given credence. [Para 11] [100-H; 101-A-C]
3. The conduct of PW3 - wife of the deceased, who was
stated to be in a shock and not in consciousness for about a month
after the death of her husband is also not believable. There is no
valid documentary or medical evidence on record in support of
the claim of prosecution. Looking at the unnatural behavior of
eye-witnesses, PWs 2 and 3 and their contradictory statements,
it cannot be said that their evidences are genuine so as to convict
the accused. [Para 12] [101-D]
4. The High Court, while appreciating the evidence of the
three important witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 2 and 3, rightly disbelieved
the presence of PWs 2 and 3 at the place of occurrence and
discredited the evidence of P.W.1 - complainant.  Undoubtedly,
the prosecution in its effort to establish the case with the support
of evidences of PWs 1, 2 and 3, has miserably failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 14]
[101-G-H]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1213 of 2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2007 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2005.
V. V. V. Pattabhiram, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advs for the Appellant.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. OM PAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
B. P. Gupta, (AC), K. S. Rana, Advs for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal by way of special leave
petition is filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the final judgment
and order dated 6th April, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2005. By the said judgment,
the High Court h

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