STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus RAM SEWAK AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 18-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
A 
v. 
RAM SEW AK AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with Section 148-Conviction-
Acquillal by High Court-Justification of-Appeal-Held: Acquilla! not 
justified since High Court on unsubstantial grounds and merely on conjectures C 
rejected the dying declaration of the deceased which fully established active 
involvement of accused and stood corroborated by other eye witnesses as 
also the fact of prompt filing of FIR-Hence order of acquillal set aside as 
against the accused actively involved. 
Appeal against acquillal-Interference by Supreme· Court-Scope- D 
Held: this Court should be slow in interfering with the verdict of acq11i1tal-
Jf verdict of acquillal is reasonable, this Court should not substitute its own 
view and reverse ii into conviction. 
There were factional rivalries between the members of the accused and 
the complainant party. It is alleged that accused armed with fire arms and E · 
bhalas approached the house of the complainant party at midnight. One of the 
members of the complainant party alerted the inmates of the house. Accused 
party fired 15 to 20 rounds at the complainant party. Complainant party raised 
an alarm. Respondent No.I-accused then fired from his gun which hit the 
deceased. Thereafter assailants ran away from the scene. Brother of the F 
deceased-PW I who was present at the scene lodged an FIR. Deceased suffered 
bullet injuries and was taken to the hospital. Thereafter his dying declaration 
was recorded, after which he died. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the 
respondents under Section 302 read with Section 148 IPC. However, High 
Court acquitted them. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that there was no justification for High Court 
to reject reliable pieces of evidence and acquit the accused since FIR was 
lodged promptly and Tehsildar record.eddying declaration in the presence of 
the doctor and other witnesses corroborated the version given by the deceased 
in his dying declaration. 
503 
G 
H 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondents-accused contended that High Court drew a conclusion of 
acquittal of accused on the reappreciation of the evidence which is plausible 
and reasonable and this Court on settled legal principles should not upset 
the verdict of acquittal; that the medical evidence did not corroborate the dying 
declaration and the evidence of eye-witnesses; and that as per the prosecution 
case as many as 20 rounds were fired by assailants, hence respondent No I 
B alone cannot be attributed to have fired and killed the deceased by his gun. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is settled legal position that if a view taken by the Court 
C recording verdict of acquittal is reasonable, this Court would not substitute 
its own view and reverse the verdict of acquittal into conviction. This Court 
should be slow in interfering with the verdict of acquittal. Further the criminal 
jurisprudence no doubt requires a high standard of proof for imposing 
punishment on an accused, but it is equally important that on hypothetical 
grounds and surmises prosecution evidence of a sterling character should 
D not be brushed aside and disbelieved to give undue benefit of doubt to accused. 
[513-E, F, H; 514-AI 
E 
F 
State of Punjab v. Bura Singh, [ 1985[ I SCC 37; State of U.P. v. 
Gokaram, [1984[ Suppl. SCC 482 and State ofU.P. v. Suresh, [1981[ 3 SCC 
635, referred to. 
1.2. In the instant case, High Court on unsubstantial grounds and merely 
on conjectures reversed a reasoned judgment of conviction of trial Court by 
wrongly acquitting the accused. There was no justifiable reason for High 
Court to have rejected the dying declaration of the deceased which fully 
established his active involvement and also FIR which was lodged promptly. 
Respondent No 1 was clearly named both in the FIR lodged by eye-witness 
and the dying declaration of the deceased. He was identified as having fired at 
deceased causing bullet injuries which resulted in his death. Hence, it would 
be unjust not to interfere. Therefore, setting aside the acquittal of respondent 
No I and confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against 
G him by trial Court is justified. [513-G; 514-A, Bl 
1.3. Both in the FIR and in the dying declaration there is an omnibus 
statement against four accused alleged to have been members of unlawful 
asse

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