Holding

The Supreme Court held that the trial court's reliance on the eyewitness and medical evidence was justified and that the High Court's acquittal was perverse, thus setting it aside and restoring the convictions.

Summary

The State of U.P. appealed the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of four accused who had been convicted by the trial court for murder (IPC s.302) and voluntarily causing hurt (IPC s.324) read with common intention (IPC s.34). The High Court had set aside the convictions, citing discrepancies in witness statements and the lack of the accused's names in the inquest report. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2004, held that the eyewitness testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and that being family members did not diminish their competence. It found the High Court's reasoning erroneous and perverse, and therefore set aside the acquittal, restoring the trial court's convictions, cancelling bail bonds and ordering the respondents to be taken into custody. The appeal was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in disbelieving the eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in a case under IPC sections 302, 324 and 34.
Whether the omission of the accused persons' names in the inquest report can constitute a ground for acquittal.
Whether the trial court's conviction should be restored in view of the evidentiary record.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 324, s. 34

Subjects

IPCmurdercommon intentioneyewitness testimonymedical evidenceacquittalconvictionappellate reviewperverse judgment

Judgment

~ [2008] 2 S.C.R. 721
/

........ STATE OF U.P. A
~
v.
JAGRAM & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 12, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

~ Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 324 r/w s. 34- conviction
• by trial Court - Acquittal by High Court - Order of High Court
set aside by Supreme Court in an appeal filed by the c
complainant- On appeal by State, held: In view of the decision
of Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the complainant, matter
disposed of
Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2004 decided by Supreme
Court on 22.3.2006 - relied on. D
CRlMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 293 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2003 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. Lucknow E
in Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 1980.
S.R. Singh, T.N. Singh and Anil Kumar Jha for the
Appellant.
Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, H.D. Thanvi, F
Pratibha Jain and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the
... ~
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. _Leave granted. G
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
721 H
I
~
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.
c
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:
D
"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
E 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
F 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
G
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
H of the accused persons were not mentioned in the inquest
STATE OF U.P. v. JAGRAM & ORS. 723
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

report. In our view, this hardly could be a ground to acquit A
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. B
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 C
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 D
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 sim~ltaneously. Apparently, that was not done.
E
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.