http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  293 of 2008

PETITIONER: State of U.P.

RESPONDENT: Jagram & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  293 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.1448 of 2005)

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.   2.      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 confidence.   

3.      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.  

4.      At 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: "The 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

upon the evidence of these three eye-witnesses  and the High Court has committed error in  rejecting the same.

Lastly, 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 aside.  The 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 Court." 5.      In 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.   6.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly.