LexYUSUF & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
792 A • c D E G H YUSUF & ANR. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR May 7, 1971 [K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. Git.OVER, JJ.) Constitution of India, Art. 136-A.ppreciation of evidence-This Court will not re-appraise evidence except in S[Ncial circumstances-Minor em- b~llishments and exaggeration do not drtract from value of testimony of a witness. Nine persons includina the two appellants were tried for the murder of G as well as attemptin1 to murder P.W. 9. Four of the nine accused were acquitted by the trial court and the others were convicted under seve- ral provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In appeal the High Court dis- believed the witnesses speaking to the attack on G and acquitted all th~ appellants before it in respect of the murder of G. It also came to the conclusion that it was not proved that there was any unlawful assembly. Even in the matter of the attack on P.W. 9 the High Court came to the conclusion that as there was no proof of previous concert on tho part oJ the assailants no aid could be taken from s. 34. Therefore it commuted tho conviction of appellant No. I for causing injury to P.W. 9 from one under s. 307 read with s. 34 l.P.C. to one under •. 326 I.P.C. The convic- tion of appellant No. 2 was converted from s. 307 I.P.C. read with s 31!' l.P.C. to one under s. 324 I.P.C. Against this decision tho present appeal was broucht by special leave. The question for consideration was whether the conviction of the appellant on the sole testimony of P.W. 9 ·wa~ justi· tied when even the two witnesses who tried to corroborate P.W. 9 were disbelieved by the High Court. HELD : (i) This Court ordinarily does not reappreciate tho evidence unless it is satisfied that exceptional and special circumstances exist for doing so. The Court must be satisfied that as a result of serious mis:ip- preciation of the evidence by the trial court and the High Court substan- tial and grave injustice has been done. Even !lt the final hearing only those points can be urged which are fit to be urged at the preliminary &tage when the leave to apfl<al is asked for. [794F-H] Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer, (1964] S.C.R. 1133, relied on. (ii) It was fully established that P.W. 9 was injured at about t!\O time and the place mentioned in the charge. The incident had taken place when there was still day light. The appellants were well known to the injur· ed so that there could be no difficulty in identifying them. P.W. 9 was not shown to have had any motive to falsely implicate the appellants. He had mentioned the names of the appellants as the assailants at the earliest op- portunity. His version was corroborated by medical evidence and was a probable one. The fact that the High Court had disbelieved the two wit- nesses who &ought to corroborate P.W. 9 or that there were certain minor contradictions and embellishments in his statement could not detract from the value of bis testimony. Both the trial court and the High Court had accepted his testimony. There was no reason for this Court to differ from them. The appeal must accordingly fail. [79SA-B] YUSUP v. BIHAR (Hegde,J.) 793 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. A 265 of 1968. Appeal by special leave from. the judgment and order dated July 19, 1968 of the Patl)a High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 72 cf 1966. Nur-ud-din Ahmed and B. P. Singh, for the appellants. B U. P. Singh, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, 1.-Nine persons including the two appellants were tried for the murder of Ghulam Rasool as well as for attempting to murder P.W. 9, Mohd. Islam. Four out of those nine accused were acquitted by the trial court. The rema'ining accused were convicted under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. But in appeal, the High Court acquitted all the appellants before it in respect of the incident relating to the murder of Ghulam Rasool. Further it converted the conviction of appellant No. l for causing injuries to P.W. 9 from one under s. 307 read with ·s. 34, I.P.C. to one under s. 326, l.P.C. and for that offence sen- tenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The conviction of appellant No. 2 Bano alias Ibrahim was converted from s. 307 l.P.C. read with 5. 34, I.P.C. to one under s. 324. I.P.C. and for that offence he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. As against that decision this appeal ·has been brought by special leave. The pros
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.