State of U.P. Vs. Shri
Krishan  Insc 765 (16 December 2004)
B.P.Singh & Arun Kumar
In this appeal by special leave the State of U.P. has impugned the judgment
and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated December 1, 1998 in Criminal Appeal No.888 of 1980. The High court, by its aforesaid
judgment and order, set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court
convicting the respondent of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and
sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
It may be noticed that two other persons namely Ram Chander ...2/- -2- and
Ram Das were put up for trial along with the respondent herein namely, Shri
Krishan. It is stated that both of them have since died.
With the assistance of counsel appearing for the parties, we have gone
through the judgment of the High Court and the material placed before us.
The prosecution case was that at about 9.00 A.M. on 15.7.1979 the deceased
Ganga Singh and his wife Smt. Bitoli (PW1) were sitting on the chabutra of Ram
Saroop Tailor waiting for a bus to go to Shahjahanpur, since PW1 was getting
medical treatment at Shahjahanpur and they used to go there to take medicines.
Suddenly, the respondent - Shri Krishan, together with Ram Chander and Ram Das
(since deceased) appeared on the scene. Ram Das caught hold of Ganga Singh, the
deceased, while Shri Krishan - respondent and Ram Chander assaulted him with
knives. Ganga Singh attempted to run away but fell down dead after covering a
few paces. Smt. Bitoli ...3/- -3- (PW1) thereafter rushed to the police station
and lodged the first information report at 9.30 A.M. at Police Station Powayan
which was at a distance of two miles from the place of occurrence. PW5 -
A.P.Tiwari, Sub-Inspector of Police commenced investigation and reached the
spot at 10.00 A.M. He found the dead body of Ganga Singh lying in front of the
shop of Ram Swaroop. He performed the inquest on the dead body and sent the
dead body for post mortem examination. Ultimately Shri Krishan and two others
were put up for trial before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur
who, as earlier noticed, convicted and sentenced the respondent and two others
under Section 302/34 IPC.
The prosecution examined three eye-witnesses namely, PW1, Smt. Bitoli, wife
of the deceased, PW2-Suraj Prakash who had a tea stall near the place of
occurrence and PW3 - Ram Swaroop, who had a tailoring shop near the place of
occurrence. PW2 and PW3 were ...4/- -4- declared hostile as they did not
support the case of the prosecution. The High Court, on consideration of the
evidence on record led by the prosecution found it to be unconvincing. It
noticed that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant PW1 was
recorded after 13 days. According to PW5 - Sub Inspector A.P.Tiwari, he had
attempted to record her statement on the same day but since she was under great
agony her statement could not be recorded. Thereafter, so long as he was in
charge of the investigation he did not record the statement. It appears from
the record that the investigation of the case was handed over to another
investigating officer Bhim Singh - PW6 on 17th July, 1979.
Ultimately Bhim Singh (PW6) recorded her statement on 28.7.1979.
There was thus, a delay of almost 13 days in recording the statement of the
informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the High Court found the
explanation given by the investigating officer rather unconvincing.
We have also noticed that the first information report lodged immediately
after ...5/- -5- the occurrence is a very lengthy FIR giving all details about
the previous enmity and the manner in which the occurrence took place. If the
FIR was really lodged by PW1, which was doubted by the High Court, it cannot be
said that she was in such a disturbed state of mind that she could not give her
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
The High court has also pointed out a serious doubt as to whether the first
information report was lodged by the informant at the time alleged i.e. after
half an hour of the occurrence. The High Court examined the record and found
that the entire inquest report was in one ink while the name of the informant
in the inquest report was by a different ink, which created a suspicion that
when the inquest report was prepared, the FIR had not come into existence, and
it had not been decided as to who would be made the first informant. It was
later that the name of the informant was inserted in the inquest report. This
gives rise to a great deal of doubt as to whether the FIR was lodged ...6/- -6-
by the person named therein, and at that time, because in that event the name
of the informant would have been written at the time when the remaining
contents of the inquest report were written.
The presence of PW1 was sought to be justified on the reasoning that she was
waiting for a bus to go to Shahjahanpur where she was being treated. The
prosecution produced no evidence to show that she was required to go to
Shahjahanpur in connection with her treatment.
In fact PW1 could not even disclose the name of the doctor who was treating
her. The High Court also examined her evidence and found that there were
significant improvements made by her at the trial. It also found that if really
the occurrence took place in the village where she resided, it was highly improbable
that she would have left for the police station even without informing her son.
The High Court has also considered the fact that one of the accused namely
Ram Chander, had moved an ...7/- -7- application on 13.10.1979 claiming that he
should be identified by Smt.
Bitoli (PW1) in a test identification parade. An order was passed but the
police did not take steps to hold a test identification parade. This conduct of
the prosecution also gave rise to serious doubt whether Smt. Bitoli (PW1) was
really an eye-witness and had seen the occurrence and named the assailants.
Failure to hold a test identification parade in such circumstances created a
serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
On a perusal of the evidence on record, the High Court found that implicit
reliance should not be placed on the testimony of PW1.
Having considered all aspects of the matter, we are satisfied that this is
not a case in which this Court may be justified in interfering with an order of
acquittal passed by the High Court. The reasons given by the High Court for
acquitting the respondent appear ...8/- -8- to be reasonable and are based on
evidence. It is well settled that even if on the basis of the same evidence,
two views are possible, the Appellate Court will not be justified in reversing
an order of acquittal if the same is based on evidence on record and the view
taken is a possible reasonable view of the evidence.
We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly,