REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 297-298 OF 2002

STATE OF U.P.                 …....APPELLANT

VERSUS

GURU CHARAN AND ORS.                     …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. These two appeals have been filed by the State of U.P.  

challenging the common Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at  

Allahabad in the Judgment in Criminal Appeal 1795/99 and Criminal  

Appeal No.2018/99 and Reference No.8 of 1999.  By the aforesaid  

judgment, the two appeals by the convicts Guru Charan, Sunil and  

Pramod  and  Brahma  Pal  have  been  allowed  and  they  have  been  

acquitted of all the charges.  At the same time the reference made  

by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of death sentence awarded to  

Guru Charan, Sunil and Pramod has been rejected.   

1

2. We may notice here the relevant facts, culled out from  

the  judgments  of  the  Trial  Court  and  the  High  Court  and  the  

evidence on record.  On 20.7.1997 Ramesh Narain, deceased along  

with his son-in-law Jitendra alias Guddu deceased and Vijay Kumar  

(PW1)  were  returning  to  village  Yakoot  Ganj,  Police  Station  

Sahawar, district Etaah in a private bus No.PB-12-0148.  Ramesh  

Narain, deceased was having his licensed double barrel gun and  

bandolier of cartridges. Nathu (PW2) was also traveling in the same  

bus.  Ramesh Narain was sitting in the third row in the front side  

of the bus.  Vijay Kumar (PW1) was sitting towards the rear end of  

the bus.  Jitendra alias Guddu deceased was sitting beside Ramesh  

Narain, deceased.  Nathu (PW 2) was sitting on the seat beside the  

bonnet.  At about 4.15 pm when the bus reached near Tali Village  

and made a temporary stop, Sunil, Pramod, Guru Charan and Brahma  

Pal boarded the bus.  Sunil and Pramod were having country-made  

pistols.  Guru Charan was having licensed rifle of 0.315 bore and  

Brahma Pal was having a knife.  On entering the bus they fired  

several shots at Ramesh Narain.   As a result of gun fire, he died  

on the spot.  Other passengers in the bus started running helter-

skelter due to fear.  It is stated that even the people working in  

the  fields  nearby  ran  away  from  there  due  to  fear  of  the  

assailants.  Jitendra alias Guddu tried to run out of the bus.  He  

2

was  however  caught,  thrown  on  the  ground  and  killed  by  the  

assailants by shooting at him from their unlicensed arms.   It is  

further the case of the prosecution that when PW2 tried to save  

Jitendra alias Guddu, Brahma Pal inflicted knife injuries on him.  

Similarly, when the driver of the bus namely Virendra tried to take  

the bus away he was attacked with a knife.  It is further stated  

that while leaving the scene of the crime the assailants took away  

the double barrel gun and bandolier of cartridges of Ramesh Narain  

deceased.    

3. The motive for the assault on the deceased is stated to  

be old enmity between the deceased and the assailants (hereinafter  

referred to as the respondents).  According to the prosecution  

about two years prior to the date of the occurrence one Vinod Kumar  

brother of respondent No.1, Sunil, was murdered. Ramesh Narain,  

Vijay Kumar (PW1) and Vishwanath were accused of murdering Vinod.  

They were, however, acquitted in the murder trial. Therefore the  

respondents were having a grudge against the deceased as well as  

Vijay Kumar (PW1).   

4. Some time after the incident, Vijay Kumar (PW1) along  

with the driver of the bus went to PS Sahawar in a jeep and lodged  

a written report Ex.Ka1 at 5.20 pm.  On the basis of this, FIR  

(Ex.Ka16) was prepared by constable Brijesh Kumar, who made an  

3

endorsement of the same at GD Report (Ex.Ka17) and registered the  

case against the respondents u/s. 302, 307, 324, 404 IPC.  The  

investigation  was  conducted  by  S.I.  Bhagwan  Sahai.  The  

Investigation  Officer  prepared  the  inquest  of  deceased  Ramesh  

Narain Upadhyay, Ex. Ka 3 and deceased Jitendra alias Guddu Ex. Ka.  

3a at the site.  He also prepared photo of the dead body Ex.Ka. 4,  

and photo of the dead body of deceased Jitendra alias Guddu Ex.  

Ka.9, wrote letter to C.M.O. Ex. Ka.7 and Ka.5 regarding deceased  

Ramesh Narain and deceased Jitendra, prepared challan of deceased  

Ramesh Narain Ex. Ka.6, challan of deceased Jitendra alias Guddu  

Ex. Ka. 8, recorded statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan  

Ex. Ka. 10.  The Investigation Officer collected blood stained and  

ordinary soil and prepared memos.  Ex. Ka. 11.  He prepared Ex. Ka.  

12 for taking empty cartridge shells and tickles, Ex. Ka. 13 for  

taking a blood stained piece of the bus seat and a stove which  

deceased Ramesh Narain was carrying with him from Sahawar after  

getting it repaired and left it in the custody vide memo Ex. Ka.  

14.  The Investigation Officer sent injured Nathu Singh (PW 2) and  

Virendra for medical examination and their injury reports are Ex.  

Ka 18 and Ka.19 respectively. The Investigation Officer sent dead  

bodies of deceased Ramesh Narain and Jitendra alias Guddu duly  

sealed for postmortem and their postmortem reports are Ext. Ka.2  

4

and Ka.3 respectively.   

5. The Special Judge (Dacoits Infested Area) Etah, framed  

charges u/s. 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, and 392 I.P.C.  

against the respondents Sunil, Pramod, Brahma Pal and Guru Charan  

on 10.2.1998.  All the accused pleaded not guilty and they were  

sent up for trial.   

6. The prosecution examined PW1, Vijay Kumar, PW2 Nathu,  

both  injured  eye-witnesses,  PW3,  Dr.  Narendra  Babu  Katiyar,  

Radiologist, who conducted the post mortem on the deceased persons,  

PW4, sub-Inspector Bhagwan Sahai, Investigation Officer. PW.5 Dr.  

Girish Chandra, Medical Officer, CH.C. Sahawar, who examined the  

injured  persons,  PW.6  Dr.  Ram  Babu,  Medical  Officer,  casualty  

department, Sarojini Naidu Medical College, Agra.   

7. We may now notice the medical evidence.  It appears that,  

Virendra Singh driver of the bus, had been sent to the Community  

Health Centre, Sahawar where he was medically examined on 20.7.1997  

at 5.40 pm by Dr. Girish Chandra PW5.  The doctor (PW5) found the  

following injuries on the driver, Virendra:

Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 5 cm on the top of  

skull 11 cm above from the ear and 18 cm from bridge  

of nose.  Deep bone uncoverage.   

5

General  condition  of  the  patient  was  poor  

advised  X-ray  and  referred  to  District  Hospital,  

Etaah  for  treatment.   The  injury  was  kept  under  

observation, caused by blunt and hard object and was  

fresh in duration.

Autopsy  on  the  dead  body  of  Ramesh  Narain  deceased  was  

conducted on  21-7-1997  at  11.30  A.M.  by  Dr.  Narendra  Babu  

Katiyar (PW.3) who found following ante mortem injuries on his  

person:-

1. Gun shot wound through and through lacerated on  

front of head and middle of head 17 cm x 3 cm x  

brain cavity deep (brain matter coming out) 4 cm  

above left ear, 12 cm above right ear from base  

of nose and including both eye brows.  Bleeding  

present.

2. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x left  

lateral  abdomen  cavity  (through)  lacerated,  

margins inverted with blackening and tattooing  

in area of 5 cm x 4 cm, on left iliac crest, 19  

cm from umbilicus.

3. Gun  shot  wound  of  exit  1  cm  x  1  cm  x  

communicating to injury No.2 on right lateral  

6

abdomen 18 cm from umbilicus at 10 ‘O’ clock.  

Lacerated.  Direction left to right.

4. Gun shot wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1 cm left chest  

cavity deep.  Margins lacerated and inverted 10  

cm  from  nipple  at  7  ‘O’  clock  position.  

Tattooing present, direction downward to right.

5. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x right back  

(Abdomen) 4 cm from mid line, 8 cm above right  

iliac crest.  Lacerated inverted.  Blackening  

present.   

6. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x ½ cm x through on  

outer aspects of left knee lacerated, inverted.  

7. Gun  shot  wound  of  entry  1  cm  x  1  cm  x  

communicating to injury No.6 on front and upper  

part of left knee.  Lacerated, inverted.    

On  internal  examination  brain  matter  was  found  coming  out.  

Peritoneum was lacerated.  Cavity contained 2 liters clotted blood.  

Stomach  contained  about  15  ounce  pasty  food  in  process  of  

digestion.  Small intestine and large intestine, gall bladder and  

right kidney were lacerated.   

  Two yellow colored bullets were recovered from abdomen.

7

According to the opinion of Doctor, cause of death was due to coma  

and  shock  as  a  result  of  injuries  noted  above.   The  Doctor  

prepared post mortem report. (Ext. Ka2)

Autopsy on the dead body of Jitendra alias Guddu was conducted on  

same day at 12.00 noon by Dr. Narendra Babu Katiyar (PW.3), who  

found following ante mortem injuries on his person:-  

1. Gun shot wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x left  

chest cavity deep on left chest, 3 cm from left  

nipple  at  2  ‘O’  clock  position.  Lacerated,  

inverted. Blackening present.  Direction left to  

right.  

2. Gun shot wound of entry 2.5 cm x 2.5 x left  

chest cavity deep on left upper chest below  

mid end of left clavicle. Lacerated inverted.  

Blackening present. Direction left to right.

3. Gun shot wound of exit (pellets) four in no. 0.5  

cm x 0.5 cm x communicating to injury No.2 on  

right lateral chest, 4 cm below axilla in an  

area of 5 cm x 3 cm.  Lacerated inverted, two  

wad pieces and one Gatta (wad) recovered from  

8

right lateral wall of chest below axilla with  

pellets 15 in number.

4. Incised  wound  3.5  cm  x  3.5  cm  x  right  chest  

cavity deep on right chest 13 cm above right  

iliac crest lateral.  Margins clean cut.   

On internal examination 4th, 5th, and 7th  ribs on left side and 5th,  

6th and  10th ribs  on  right  side  were  fractured.   Pleura  was  

lacerated.  Both lungs were lacerated. Thoracic cavity contained  

about 1 liters fresh and clotted blood. Peritoneum was lacerated.  

Cavity  contained  about  1  liters  of  clotted  blood.   Stomach  

contained about 1.15 ml of semi digested food.  Large intestine  

contained gasses and faecal matters. Gall bladder was lacerated.    

One yellow colour pellet recovered from right back of chest.  One  

Gatta (wad) and two wad pieces and 15 pellets were recovered from  

right lateral chest wall.

In the opinion of Doctor, cause of death was shock and haemorrage  

as  a  result  of  injuries  noted  above.   The  doctor  prepared  

postmortem report (Ext. Ka3).   

9

Nathu Singh (PW.2) was shifted to S.R.N. Medical College, Agra and  

his injuries were examined on 21-7-1997 at 3.50 A.M. by Dr. Ram  

Babu (PW.6) who found the following injuries on his person:-  

1. One stab wound elliptical in shape 1-1/2” x ½” x  

abdominal  cavity  deep  1-1/2”  away  from  left  

umbilicus at 11 ‘O’ clock position.  Loop of  

intestine coming out, bleeding present.   

2. One horizontal elliptical wound 1” x ½”x depth  

not probed. 3” away left to umbilicus at 3 ‘O’  

clock position.  

3. One elliptical wound present 6” away at 10 ‘O’  

clock position in right A.S.I. spine.  Placed  

vertically.

4. One stab wound on scalp over occipital are ½” x  

¼”  x  not  proven  size  ½”  x  ¼”  x  not  proven.  

Bleeding present.

Margins of all wounds were clear.  The doctor opined that it was  

fresh  case  of  stabbed  injuries.  All  injuries  were  kept  under  

observation and fresh in duration.  Patient admitted and police  

informed for dying declaration.   

10

8. On  22.7.1997  Guru  Charan,  respondent  was  arrested  at  

12.10 pm in village Jamalpur near Temple. At that time he was  

carrying .315 bore rifle and six cartridges which were taken into  

possession.  Thereafter Bhagwan Sahai was transferred and remaining  

investigation was conducted by SO Rajpal Singh who on completion of  

investigation  submitted  chargesheet  (Ex.Ka15)  against  the  

respondents. Fired cartridges recovered from the spot and licensed  

gun of Guru Charan, respondent was sent to Joint Director Forensic  

Science  Laboratory,  Lucknow,  Uttar  Pradesh  for  comparison  and  

report.  Report dated 23.12.1997 (Ex. Ka.20) was submitted by the  

Asst. Director of the laboratories.  

9.   The Trial Court on examination of the evidence came to the  

conclusion that the evidence given by the Vijay Kumar (PW1) cannot  

be  brushed  aside  only  on  ground  of  the  enmity  against  the  

respondent.  He was present in the bus at the time of the incident.  

He  filed  the  report  against  the  accused  at  the  Police  Station  

immediately after the incident.  He was cross-examined at length  

but nothing favourable to the accused could be elicited from him.  

Trial Court also came to the conclusion that Vijay Kumar (PW1) has  

given consistent evidence without any material contradiction. He  

had no motive to depose falsely against the respondents as he along  

with his uncle Ramesh Narain, deceased were in fact acquitted of  

11

the murder charge in the earlier case.  The Trial Court further  

holds  that  the  evidence  of  Nathu  (PW2)  fully  supported  the  

prosecution  version.   He  was  an  injured  eye-witness.   He  was  

neither a friend of the prosecution nor an enemy of the accused.  

He was an independent and impartial witness and there was no reason  

to disbelieve his evidence.  The Trial Court did not accept the  

suggestions of the defence that Vijay Kumar (PW1) and Nathu (PW2)  

were procured witnesses.  The injuries suffered by the witnesses  

were self-inflicted.  Numerous contradictions in the evidence of  

PW1 Vijay Kumar and PW 2 Nathu were held to be not material.  The  

Trial Court also found that the version of injuries given by PW1  

and PW2 is corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the  

ocular evidence given by PW3, PW5 and PW6.  PW3 Dr. Narendra Babu  

Katiyar had conducted the post mortem on the deceased Ramesh Narain  

He  had  found  6  fire  arm  injuries  on  his  body.   He  had  also  

conducted post mortem on Jitendra who had three fire arm injuries  

on his body.  PW5, Dr. Girish Chandra had examined the injuries on  

Virendra and found an incise wound on his body.  Similarly PW6, Dr.  

Ram Babu examined Nathu (PW 2) and found the knife injuries on his  

stomach.  The cross examinations of these doctors proved totally  

ineffective for the respondents.   

12

10. Upon consideration of the entire evidence, the Trial Court  

held  that  the  prosecution  has  successfully  proved  that  the  

respondents Sunil, Pramod and Guru Charan in furtherance of their  

common intention committed murder of Ramesh Narain and Jitendra  

alias  Guddu.   It  was  further  held  that  respondent  Brahma  Pal  

committed  murderous  assault  on  Nathu  Singh  (PW2).   Accordingly  

respondents Sunil, Pramod and Guru Charan were convicted u/s. 302  

read with Section 34 IPC whereas Brahma Pal was convicted under  

Section 307 IPC.  Upon conviction Sunil, Pramod and Guru Charan  

were sentenced to death whereas Brahma Pal was sentenced to life  

imprisonment.  

11.   The respondents-convicts, aggrieved by the judgment of the  

Additional Sessions Judge, challenged the same in separate appeals  

before the High Court.    

12.      The High Court re-examined the entire evidence and came to  

the  conclusion  that  the  prosecution  story  is  unbelievable.  

Consequently,  Criminal  Appeal  1795/99  and  Criminal  Appeal  

No.2018/99 by the convicts Guru Charan, Sunil and Pramod and Brahma  

Pal have been allowed and they have been acquitted of all the  

charges and Reference No.8 of 1999 made by the Sessions Judge for  

confirmation of death sentence awarded to Guru Charan, Sunil and  

Pramod has been rejected.  

13

13.  Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned senior counsel for the appellant  

submitted that the High Court has erred in accepting the appeals  

filed by the respondents. He has taken us through the evidence, as  

well as the judgments of both the courts below. He submits that the  

evidence given by P.W.1 Vijay Kumar and P.W.2 Nathu Singh, could  

not  be  discarded,  as  they  are  injured  witnesses.  Nathu  Singh,  

P.W.2, had no reason to falsely implicate the respondents, being an  

independent witness. The medical evidence is consistent with the  

oral testimony. Therefore, few minor discrepancies would not be  

material to discredit the testimony of the eye witnesses. According  

to the learned counsel, this is a case of pre- planned assault, by  

one group on the other. It is a clear case of revenge killing.  

Therefore, the trial court verdict as well as sentence were legal  

and ought to be restored.

14. On the other hand, Mr.H.C.Kharbanda, learned counsel for the  

respondents submits that this is a clear case where an incident of  

dacoity has been twisted to falsely involve the respondents in a  

crime they did not commit. He emphasized that the presence of Vijay  

Kumar (P.W.1) is very doubtful. Nathu Singh (P.W.2) also can not be  

believed, in view of the medical evidence, as well as the statement  

of Dr. Ram Babu (P.W.6). Enmity existed between the two parties. He  

further emphasized that Vijay Kumar (P.W.1) has given a fabricated  

14

version.  Driver  of  the  bus  Virendra,  though  injured,  has  been  

deliberately withheld by the prosecution. He submitted that such  

firing in a bus was bound to injure some other passengers. He  

submits  that  the  High  Court  has  correctly  disbelieved  the  

prosecution version. According to the learned counsel, the State  

has failed to make out any exceptional case to warrant interference  

with the judgment of the High Court.

15. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel.

16. In its well reasoned and detailed judgment, the High Court has  

re-examined the entire evidence. While considering the evidence of  

Vijay Kumar (P.W.1), it is noticed that Guru Charan who is said to  

be the main assailant did not have any motive to commit the murder  

of the deceased.  He was simply a witness in the murder case  

against deceased Ramesh Narain.  Vijay Kumar (PW1) in the evidence  

had stated that Guru Charan armed with a licensed .315 bore rifle  

had entered the bus and fired 7-8 rounds on his uncle i.e. deceased  

Ramesh Narain.  He further stated that due to the injuries his  

uncle died there and then, in the bus itself.  He further stated  

that his brother-in-law Jitendra alias Guddu immediately got down  

from the bus and started running in order to save himself but the  

respondent fired upon him and he too was killed outside the bus.  

This witness further stated when Nathu (PW 2) came forward to save  

15

Guddu, Brahma Pal stabbed him with his knife.  Vijay Kumar (PW1)  

emphatically stated that no other person received any injuries.  

But then it is stated that when the driver of the bus tried to move  

the bus he too was stabbed.  On an analysis of his evidence, the  

High  Court  concluded  that  the  evidence  of  this  witness  was  

unbelievable for a number of reasons.  We may notice here only the  

prominent reasons given by the High Court.   

17. It is noticed that according to the witness Vijay Kumar (PW  

1), he was sitting at the back of the bus. When his uncle was being  

shot at, he hid behind the seat. Every other person tried to get  

off the bus. Even people in the nearby fields ran away for fear of  

the assailants. The assault was so ferocious that two persons were  

killed, two were injured. The two injured had no enmity with the  

respondents. On the other hand, Vijay Kumar (PW1) was a co-accused  

in the murder of Vinod. Yet he suffered no injury. He made no  

effort to save his uncle Ramesh Narain deceased. His account of the  

incident is so graphical that he could only do this if he was  

visible to the respondents. In that case, he would not have been  

spared. The High Court, therefore, doubts his presence at the scene  

of the crime.  

18. It is then noticed by the High Court that even the inquest  

report has been specially prepared to show the presence of Vijay  

16

Kumar (PW1) at the place of occurrence, when the investigating  

officer visited the spot. But Vijay Kumar (PW1), in his cross-

examination states that after handing over written report to the  

Head Constable at the police station, he went to sleep and did not  

know what happened after that. This report was handed over to the  

Head Constable at 5.20 p.m. He woke up only at about 9-10 p.m. By  

that time, the investigating officer had returned to the police  

station. He did not know whether the investigating officer had gone  

to the spot on the night of the occurrence. He did not know when or  

where documents were prepared regarding the dead body. However, he  

admitted his signature on the inquest report of the deceased Ramesh  

Narain.  He  also  stated  that  his  signature  was  obtained  at  the  

police station. Thus, according to Vijay Kumar (PW 1), he never  

went to the spot during the night after reporting the crime. On the  

other hand, the investigating officer states that he was present at  

the spot between 9-10 p.m. Thus, according to the High Court, the  

investigating  officer  has  been  over  enthusiastic  to  ensure  the  

presence  of  Vijay  Kumar  (PW  1)  which  was,  to  say  the  least,  

doubtful. The High Court also found the evidence of Vijay Kumar (PW  

1) about injuries on Virendra, bus driver, was contrary to the  

medical evidence. Dr. Girish Chandra (P.W.5) says that Virendra had  

suffered a lacerated wound caused with a blunt weapon, whereas  

17

Vijay Kumar (PW 1) says he was stabbed with the knife.  

19. Again Vijay Kumar (PW 1) states that Guru Charan caught hold  

of Jitendra alias Guddu and made him fall down. Then Pramod and  

Sunil fired at him from a distance of about two feet. There is no  

mention of any knife injury but the post mortem report shows that  

Jitendra alias Guddu had sustained one incised wound 3.5 x 12.5 cm  

on right side of the chest. Thus the version is contradicted by  

medical evidence.

20. Then Vijay Kumar (PW 1) says that Guru Charan had fired a  

number of shots at his uncle Ramesh Narain (deceased) from his  

licensed .315 bore rifle. The empty cartridges had fallen in the  

bus.  These  were  collected  by  the  Investigating  Officer.  The  

licensed rifle of Guru Charan was taken into possession. The empty  

cartridges recovered from the spot and the rifle of Guru Charan was  

sent  to  forensic  Science  laboratory  for  comparision.  The  test  

report shows that the cartridges were not fired from the licensed  

gun of Guru Charan.

21. The High Court then noticed that Nathu (PW 2), who had been  

seriously injured and was in need of urgent medical attention was  

not  taken  in  the  jeep  when  Virendra  and  Vijay  Kumar  (PW  1)  

proceeded to the police station. This again casts a doubt on the  

version given by Vijay Kumar (PW 1).

18

22. Having virtually destroyed the credibility of Vijay Kumar (PW  

1), the High Court then proceeds to examine the eye witness account  

of Nathu Singh(PW 2) (injured witness). Nathu (PW 2) also claims to  

be in the bus. He also talks of Ramesh Narain being shot dead by  

all the accused, who fired at him from their respective weapons. He  

also talks of Jitendra alias Guddu being pulled down to the ground  

and being shot. Then he says, when he tried to intervene, Brahma  

Pal caused injuries on him with a knife. He still carries the marks  

of the injuries. His version of when he got the injuries is not  

supported by the medical examination.     

23. The High Court noticed the evidence given by Dr. Ram Babu  

(P.W.6) who had examined the injuries of Nathu Singh (P.W.2) on  

21.7.1997 in S.N. Medical College, Agra at 3.50 a.m. Dr. Ram Babu  

(P.W.6) in his evidence stated that it was a fresh case of stab  

injuries and injuries were fresh in duration.  He further stated  

that by fresh injuries he meant the injuries caused within 6 to 10  

hours.  He also found that injuries 1 and 3 were bleeding and  

caused by one weapon.  Fresh injuries are the injuries which are  

caused within 6 hours.  No doubt there may be variation of two  

hours on either side.  Thus the fresh injuries could be termed  

injuries within 4 to 8 hours and not more than 8 hours.  On the  

basis of the aforesaid, the High Court was of the opinion that  

19

since Nathu (PW 2) was examined about 12 hours after the injuries  

were caused, they could not be described as fresh injuries.  

24. The High Court further noticed the claim of Nathu (P.W.2) that  

after the occurrence he was brought to the police station. He was  

medically examined in Sahawar and thereafter shifted to Etaah. From  

Etaah he was further shifted to Agra. But Dr. Ram Babu (P.W.6) who  

had examined Nathu (P.W.2) at S.N. Medical College, Agra stated  

that no reference slip was shown to him. The prosecution also did  

not  file  any  injury  report  on  the  reference  slip  prepared  at  

Sahawar or Etaah. Although Nathu Singh (PW 2) claims to have been  

brought to the police station by the police personnel he did not  

identify any particular police officer who helped him. In fact, the  

investigating officer Bhagwan Sahai (Sub Inspector) in his evidence  

stated that Nathu Singh (P.W.2) did not meet him on the date of the  

occurrence. The High Court also noticed that although Nathu Singh  

(PW 2) had stated that appellant Guru Charan had fired at Ramesh  

Narain from his licensed .315 bore rifle, the empty cartridges  

recovered from the bus had not been fired from the licensed rifle  

of Guru Charan. It is also noticed by the High Court that Nathu (PW  

2) had failed to explain the circumstances in which Jitendra alias  

Guddu (deceased) sustained knife injuries, as according to Nathu  

20

(PW 2), the respondents Pramod, Sunil and Guru Charan had fired at  

Jitendra alias Guddu.  

25. Upon this thorough examination of the entire witness, the High  

Court has concluded that the evidence of Nathu Singh (P.W.2) is  

falsified by the evidence of Dr. Ram Babu (P.W.6). Consequently,  

Nathu Singh (PW 2) has also been held to be unreliable witness.  

After  examination  of  the  eye  witnesses  who  testified  for  the  

prosecution, the High Court noticed another relevant omission in  

the  case  of  the  prosecution.  According  to  the  prosecution  

witnesses, the driver, Virendra, sustained injuries in the same  

incident and by the same assailants. He was also an eye witness. He  

was  alleged  to  have  taken  Vijay  Kumar  (P.W.1)  to  the  police  

station. Yet he has not been examined by the prosecution. It has  

also come in the evidence of the witnesses that there were numerous  

other passengers in the bus. These passengers were said to have  

quickly got off the bus. Although there was sustained firing by the  

assailants in the bus, none of the other passengers were injured.  

The prosecution also did not care to examine any other passenger  

who would have been the eye witness to the whole transaction. In  

this state of the evidence, the High Court has concluded that the  

prosecution  has  miserably  failed  to  prove  the  guilt  of  the  

21

respondents for the murder of Ramesh Narain, and Jitendra alias  

Guddu and the murderous assault of Nathu Singh (PW.2).  

26.     With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the  

parties, we have carefully examined the evidence as well as the  

findings recorded by the courts below. We are of the considered  

opinion that the view taken by the High Court is both plausible and  

possible. The scope of interference in Article 136 in an appeal  

against acquittal is rather limited. The position with regard to  

circumstances in which the appellate court would interfere with an  

acquittal has been recently restated by this court in the case of  

State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Banne alias Baijnath & Ors. [2009 (4)  

SCC 271]. In this case, the settled legal position which has been  

crystallized in a number of judgments has been reconsidered and  

reiterated. The principles emerging are restated in the following  

words:

“27.  The  following  principles  emerge  from  the  aforementioned cases:

1. The appellate court may review the evidence in  appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386  of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of  reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court  can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It  can review the trial court’s conclusion with respect  to both facts and law.

2.  The  accused  is  presumed  to  be  innocent  until  proved guilty. The accused possessed this presumption  when he was before the trial court. The High Court’s  

22

acquittal  bolsters  the  presumption  that  he  is  innocent.

3.  There  must  also  be  substantial  and  compelling  reasons for reversing an order of acquittal.

This Court would be justified in interfering with the  judgment of acquittal of the High Court only when  there are very substantial and compelling reasons to  discard the High Court’s decision.

28. Following are some of the circumstances in which  perhaps this Court would be justified in interfering  with the judgment of the High Court, but these are  illustrative not exhaustive:

(i) The High Court’s decision is based on totally  erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal  position;

(ii)  The  High  Court’s  conclusions  are  contrary  to  evidence and documents on record;

(iii)  The  entire  approach  of  the  High  Court  in  dealing  with  the  evidence  was  patently  illegal  leading to grave miscarriage of justice;

(iv) The High Court’s judgment is manifestly unjust  and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on  the record of the case;

(v) This Court must always give proper weight and  consideration to the findings of the High Court;

(vi)  This  Court  would  be  extremely  reluctant  in  interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court  and  the  High  Court  have  recorded  an  order  of  acquittal.”  

27. We may also notice here the observations made by this Court in  

the case of State of U.P. vs. Harihar Bux Singh & Anr. [975 3 SCC  

167] with regard to the scope of interference by this Court under  

Article 136 of the Constitution. It is observed as follows:-  

23

“In  an  appeal  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution, this Court does not interfere with the  finding  of  acquittal  recorded  by  the  High  Court  unless  that  finding  is  vitiated  by  some  glaring  infirmity in the appraisement of evidence. The fact  that another view could also have been taken on the  evidence  on  record  would  not  justify  interference  with the judgment of acquittal. The judgment of the  High Court in the present case has not been shown to  suffer from any such weakness as might induce us to  interfere.  The  appeal  consequently  fails  and  is  dismissed.”

28. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of  

State of U.P. vs. Gopi & Ors. [1980 Supp. SCC 160] wherein it is  

observed as follows:  

“There may be something to be said for this view  of the High Court and, if we were sitting as a court  of appeal, we may have taken a different view and may  have accepted the statements of PWs 4 and 6. But that  is no reason to set aside the judgment of the High  Court for after consideration of the various aspects  of the case it cannot be said that the view taken by  the High Court was not reasonably possible.”

29. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr.  

[1979  (3)  SCC  1],  the  same  view  has  been  again  reiterated  as  

follows:-  

“The facts of the case have been set out in the  judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary  for us to repeat them again. It is well-settled that  this Court would not normally interfere with an order  of acquittal in special leave unless there are cogent  reasons  for  doing  so  or  unless  there  is  a  gross  

24

violation of any procedure of law which results in  serious miscarriage of justice. We have heard Counsel  for the parties and have gone through the judgment of  the Sessions Judge and of the High Court. It is true  that High Court has not made an attempt to discuss  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  evidence  of  the  eyewitnesses but having regard to the glaring defects  appearing in the prosecution case we are in agreement  with the ultimate view taken by the High Court.”

30. Applying  the  aforesaid  principles  to  the  facts  and  

circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that  

the  findings  recorded  by  the  High  Court  do  not  warrant  any  

interference by this Court. In view of the above, the appeals are  

dismissed.    

   ......................J.          [B.Sudershan Reddy]   

.....................J.                   [Surinder Singh Nijjar]  

    New Delhi;    February 23, 2010.

25