In Criminal Appeal Nos.1200-1202 of 2022-SC- Apex Court says it would not be powerless to re-appreciate evidence if appreciation and finding is vitiated by any error of law, found contrary to principles of natural justice, or where conclusions of HC are manifestly perverse Justices B.R. Gavai & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha [10-08-2022]

feature-top

Read Order: KHEMA @ KHEM CHANDRA ETC VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, August 11, 2022: The Supreme Court has observed in clear terms that it would not be powerless to re-appreciate the evidence if it finds that the appreciation of evidence and findings is vitiated by any error of law or found contrary to the   principles   of   natural   justice or where the conclusions of the High Court are found manifestly perverse.

The Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha allowed  the  present appeals  assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court whereby the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  was confirmed. The Bench was of the opinion that the Trial Court and the High Court failed to consider the vital discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

It was the case of the prosecution that the marriage of two daughters of deceased Prakash was to be solemnized in 2002.  On April 27, 2002, when the deceased Prakash and his wife Kripa were going to extend an invitation to their relatives, near the house of accused Deepi, all the accused persons who were hiding inside the   house started assaulting the deceased Prakash and threw him on the brick road. Inder, brother of deceased Prakash, his sister Omwati and wife Kripa came forward to save the life of the deceased  Prakash. However,  accused persons assaulted them as well.

Subsequently, an FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 506 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed in the Trial court. Charges were also framed against accused Balveer under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and against accused Deepi under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.  At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial court convicted the appellants.  The appellants instituted appeals before the High Court which were also dismissed. It was this impugned order that was assailed by the appellants by way of the present appeal. 

From   the   perusal   of   the   evidence   as   well   as   the findings of the Trial Court itself, the Bench clarified that thought Inder was an injured eye witness, yet there were serious discrepancies and inconsistencies with regard to time of the injuries sustained and time at which he was medically examined. 

 It was further noted by this Court that  Dr. Anoop Kumar, in his evidence, changed his stance on several occasions. His testimonywas totally contrary to that of the first prosecution witness and Inder. The Bench opined that it was not safe to base the conviction on the sole testimony of Inder though he was an injured witness. The corroboration sought by the prosecution with regard to alleged recoveries of the weapons used in the crime was also not free from doubt. 

Neither, the   station   diary   entry   with   regard   to   telephonic intimation given by Vijay Singh at 9.05 am was brought on   record   nor   was    Vijay   Singh     examined, the Court noted.   The possibility of the prosecution not bringing on record the real genesis of the incident cannot be ruled out, the Court further stated. 

The Bench noted, “If this Court finds that the appreciation of evidence and findings is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse, this Court would not be powerless to reappreciate the evidence”. At this stage reliance was placed on the judgments in  Himachal   Pradesh   Administration v. Shri  Om Prakash, Arunachalam v. P.S.R.   Sadhanantham ,  Mithilesh Kumari and Another v. Prem Behari Khar, State   of   U.P. v. Babul   Nath and Pattakkal Kunhikoya (Dead)   By   LRs.   v. Thoopiyakkal   Koya and Another. 

Though independent witnesses were available, the prosecution  failed to examine them.  Thus, this Court observed  that in the instant case the appellants were entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the appeals were allowed. 

Add a Comment