STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus RAM VEER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 689 · Decided: 05-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
A 
v. 
RAM VEER SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Appeal against acquittal-In an appeal against conviction ulss. 3021 
34 and 2QJ !PC High Court finding prosecution evidence col)tradictory and C 
unreliable-Besides, dead body found after one month from a pond-Identity 
based solely on clothes worn by corpse-Ocular evidence not supported by 
autopsy report-Acquittal by High Court-Appeal against-HELD: Keeping 
in view the principles with regard to appeal against acquittal, on facts, the 
findings arrived at by High Court and order of acquittal do not suffer from D · 
any infirmity to warrant interference-Penal Code, 1860-ss. 302134 and 
201-Constitution of India-Article 136. 
Three accused-respondents were prosecuted under ss. 302/34 and 201 
IPC. The prosecution case was that on the day of incident, when after the day's 
work, PW-I, the informant, along with her husband and their son PW-7, were E 
returning home at about sunset, the three accused armed with 'gandasa, 
ballam and lathi' came from behind and attacked her husband. Hearing their 
cries some villagers reached there, but as they were chased by the accused 
they abandoned the scene. The accused dragged the victim by his feet Later, 
PW-I was said to have returned to the place of incident with the village F 
chowkidar but they could not locate the body of the deceased. PW-I lodged 
the FIR the following day at 9.15 A.M. A decomposed body was said to have 
been recovered from a pond at the instance of the chowkidar of the village 
after a month and it was identified by PW-1 as of her husband solely on the 
basis of the clothes worn by the corpse. The trial court convicted the accused 
of the offences charged and sentenced them, inter alia, to imprisonment for G 
life. 
In appeal before the High Court, the accused reiterating their challenge 
to the identity of the dead body, submitted that the autopsy report indicated 
that the body bore no marks of injury, cut or fracture; and that the scalp and 
689 
H 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R 
A most of the organs below the neck to the wrist were found missing. The High 
Court found that PW-4, who was produced as eye-witness, resiled from the 
statements made during the investigation; statements of PW-1 were 
contradictory and her evidence was totally unreliable; her conduct during the 
trial was not above board; though she was married to the deceased, but at the 
B time of incident she was not living with him; the investigating officer admitted 
that seals of two containers in which blood stained earth and samples had 
been kept were found to be tampered with; he did not produce the case diary. 
The High Court further held that in the absence of any definite material to 
prove that the dead body recovered was that of the deCeased, prosecution version 
was doubtful; the evidence of the child witness (PW-7) who was 5-6 years of 
C age at the time ~f incident, i.e. two years before his deposition in Court, was 
not reliable as he appeared to have been tutored. In these circumstances, the 
High .Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, and acquitted 
the accused of all the charges. Aggrieved, the State filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the 
appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are 
~ 
compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is 
clearly unreasonable, and relevant and convincing materials have been 
unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for 
E interference. In the instant case, the reasons indicated by the High Court for 
recording the order of acquittal do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant 
interference. [Para 9 and. 10) (694-D-G) 
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1973)' 
SC 2622; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 Supreme 167; 
F Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 3 Supreme 320; Raj Kishore Jha 
v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 7 Supreme 152; State of Punjab v. Kamai/ 
Singh, (2003) 5 Supreme 508; State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr., (2003) 
7 Supreme 17; V.N Ratheesh v. State of Kera/a, (2006] 10 SCC 617 and 
Bhagwan Sing and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 2 Supreme 567, 
G relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUR1SDICTIO
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.