REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1053 OF 2002   

State of U.P. ...Appellant

Versus

Mutahir Mian ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who faced trial for alleged

commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(in short `the Act').   The learned Sessions Judge,  Rampur  in S.T.  No.30 of 1980

found him guilty and convicted him for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and

sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.

In  appeal,  the  High  Court  found  certain  vital  discrepancies  in  the

prosecution version and directed acquittal.   

-2-

The prosecution version, as unfolded during trial is as follows.

On 04.11.1979 at about 9.30 A.M. when the informant Zahidullah along

with his brother Sajidullah (hereinafter reeferred to as `deceased') and Shakirullah

were returning via triangular crossing at Majar Khurmewali, they were accosted at

that crossing by accused Mutahir Mian, who  challenged them by saying “Bahadur Aa

rahe hain”.   On this  the deceased questioned him.  Immediately thereon,  he was

stabbed thrice by the accused.  His brother Zahidullah, in order to save his brother

from any further assault,  attacked the  accused  with  a knife,  resulting  in several

injuries on the person of accused.  Finding the condition of the injured grave, leaving

him  in  the  custody  of  his  brother-in-law  Yakub  Khan  and  younger  brother

Shakirullah with the instruction to carry him to the hospital, Zahidullah immediately

proceeded to the police station for reporting the matter.  The report was got scribed

from Rajendra Prakash Saxena (PW-9)  and the same was lodged by him at the police

station Kotwali, Rampur, at about 10.15 A.M.  The FIR was marked as Ext.Ka.1.

The chick report is Ext. Ka-3 and copy of the G.D entry was marked as Ext.Ka.4.

The investigation  of the case was taken over by S.I. Iqtadar Hussain Rizvi (PW-8).

-3-

After completion of  the  investigation,  charge sheet  was  filed  and the

accused faced trial.  The Trial Court, as noted above, found the prosecution version to

be cogent and recorded conviction.  In appeal, the High Court directed acquittal on

three  grounds.   Firstly,  it  was  held  that  the  prosecution  version  that  the  first

information report was lodged at 10.15 A.M.,  has not been proved. Secondly, the

memo which was  stated  to  have been received from the  Civil  Hospital  was  not

brought on record.  It was found that the existence of the FIR at 10.15 A.M. is belied

by the fact that after about six hours, the copy of the FIR was reached  to the Doctor

who has conducted the post  mortem.  Apart from that, thirdly, the so called eye-

witnesses were not believable. It was also noticed that serious injuries on the accused

were not explained.

Learned counsel for the appellant – State submitted that the conclusions

of the High Court to direct acquittal are not sustainable.  Great emphasis is laid on

the evidence of  PW-7,  the Head Constable,  who is  stated  to  have recorded  the

original FIR.  According to him, based on the written report Ext.Ka.1, the FIR was

registered in relation to offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.  Subsequently, on

receipt of the memo from the hospital, it was altered to Section 302 IPC.  It was also

submitted that merely because there was some delay  in  sending  copy  of  the FIR  to

the

-4-

Doctor, i.e. for about six hours, that cannot be a ground for acquittal.  Finally, it was

submitted that the evidence of the witnesses was clear and cogent.

We find that the High Court has analysed the evidence in great detail to

conclude about the non acceptability of the prosecution version. The conclusions of

the High Court cannot be termed as irrational or perverse.  The view expressed by the

High Court is a possible view.  The cumulative effect of the infirmities pointed out,

probabilise the defence version.

We find nothing infirm in the conclusions of the High Court to warrant

interference.  The appeal fails and is dismissed.

                                    .....................J.   (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

                .....................J.              (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)  

New Delhi, September 25, 2008.