THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus RAJA ETC.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 30-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
23
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
RAJA ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 396-398 of 2015)
AUGUST 30, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Gun shot – Murder of
victim-deceased and injuries to his brother – Conviction by trial
court on evidence of eye-witness who was victim’s  lawyer-brother-
PW1 – High Court set aside conviction doubting the presence of
PW1 at the time and place of occurrence – State’s appeal against
acquittal – Held: PW-1 being a lawyer having good practice and
also a member of the Nagar Palika giving audience to the public in
the morning, the High Court rightly doubted his presence at the
place of occurrence at 9.30 a.m. on the day of incident – High
Court also doubted the evidence of PW-1 as to why an advocate
like PW-1 instead of going to the court would follow his brother
who was taking the cattle for grazing in the jungle – Absence of
bullet holes on the clothes of the deceased also created a doubt
about the case of the prosecution and the time and manner alleged
– Raising doubts about the case of the prosecution, the High Court
extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused to reverse
the conviction – The view taken by High Court did not suffer from
any serious and substantial error warranting interference – No
reason to take a different view.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  The records showed that PW-1  was an advocate
having good practice at the Bar. PW-1 was also then a member of
the Nagar Palika. In his evidence PW-1 admitted that normally
he used to give hearing to the public in the morning time at the
Nagar Palika.  As observed by the High court that audience to
the public by PW-1 could have been only before the
commencement of court hours and thereafter he would go to the
court. Occurrence happened on 13th June, 1995 at 9.30 a.m. It
was brought on record that 13th June, 1995 was a working day.
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 23
23
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
PW-1 being a lawyer having good practice and also a member of
the Nagar Palika giving audience to the public in the morning,
the High Court rightly doubted his presence at the place of
occurrence at 9.30 a.m. on the said day. The High Court also
doubted the evidence of PW-1 as to why an advocate like PW-1
instead of going to the court would follow his deceased brother
who was taking the cattle for grazing in the jungle and PW-1’s
conduct in following his brother being unnatural. [Para 5][26-C-F]
2.  In his evidence, PW-1 stated that after the occurrence
he went to the court to write down the complaint first. Here again,
the High Court observed that the conduct of PW-1 was quite
unnatural in the sense that when one of his brothers, the deceased
was killed and another brother, PW-2 sustained injuries in his
arm, instead of taking the injured brother to a hospital or going
to the police station, PW-1 had gone all the way to the Court only
to write down the complaint. Here again, the conduct of PW-1, as
observed by the High Court appeared to be strange and unnatural.
[Para 6][26-F-H]
3. The deceased sustained gunshot wound on the chest with
chest cavity deep. The doctor (PW-3) in his evidence pointed out
that there was not a single hole either in the vest, kurta and
tehmad which were sent along with the dead body for examination.
Even the Inquest Report did not mention any bullet hole in the
clothes of the deceased. When the deceased sustained gunshot
injury on the chest with chest cavity deep, in the normal course
one would expect holes on the clothes worn by the deceased,
namely, western kurta. Raising doubts about the case of the
prosecution, the High Court has extended the benefit of doubt
to the respondents-accused to reverse the conviction.  It cannot
be said that the view taken by the High Court suffered from any
serious and substantial error warranting interference by this
Court.  [Paras 7, 8][27-B-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 396-398 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2009 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 568, 231 and 250 of
2002.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
25
V. V. V. Pattabhiram, Ms. Priyanka, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Abhisth
Kumar, Yunus Malik, Prashant Chaudhary, Ajay Kumar Singh, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J.: 1. These appeals arise out of judgment
and order dated 29th May, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature

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