of U.P. Vs. Jagram & Ors.  Insc
180 (12 February 2008)
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.1448 of 2005) DR.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 passed by
the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.486/1990. Four
persons had filed the aforesaid appeal questioning their conviction for
offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Though the Trial Court had recorded a
conviction, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set
aside the conviction. It was noted that there were several discrepancies in the
evidence of the witnesses and the prosecution version did not inspire
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court
is not correct and the analysis of evidence suffers from various infirmities.
this juncture, it needs to be noted that the complainant Usman Ali had filed
Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2004 before this Court questioning the correctness of
the impugned judgment in the present appeal. This Court by its judgment date
22.3.2006 allowed the appeal with the following observations:
evidence of these three eyewitnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence.
The High Court has committed an error of record in observing that the injuries
found on these witnesses are not consistent with the prosecution case rather
from the injuries noted above, it would be clear that the prosecution case is
supported by medical evidence. Further their evidence could not have been
thrown out merely because they were family members rather they were most
competent persons being the inmates of the house especially when the occurrence
had taken place in the house itself in the dead of night. This being the
position, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. In our view,
the Trial Court was quite justified in placing reliance upon the evidence of
these three eye-witnesses and the High Court has committed error in rejecting
the High Court has committed an error in recording acquittal also on the ground
that the names of the recording acquittal also on the ground that the names of
the accused persons were not mentioned in the inquest report. In our view, this
hardly could be a ground to acquit the accused persons. For the foregoing
reasons, we are of the view that the Trial Court was quite justified in
convicting the respondents and the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High
Court suffers from the vice of perversity, as such the same is liable to be set
appeal is, accordingly, allowed, impugned order of acquittal rendered by the
High Court is set aside and convictions of the respondent recorded by the Trial
Court are restored. Bail bonds of respondents, who are on bail, are cancelled
and they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the
remaining period of sentence for which compliance report must be sent to this
Court within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order by the Trial
this view of the matter, nothing further survives to be done in the present
appeal. However, had the parties brought to the notice of the Bench hearing
Criminal Appeal No. 233/2004 about pendency of the present appeal, it could
have been taken up simultaneously. Apparently, that was not done.
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Pages: 1 2 3 4