Holding

The High Court's acquittal of the accused is upheld as its findings were not irrational or perverse.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh charged Mutahir Mian with murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court convicted him based on the prosecution's version that the accused stabbed the deceased thrice. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court acquitted him, finding that the FIR was not proved to have been lodged at the alleged time, the hospital memo was not produced, the six‑hour delay in sending the FIR copy to the doctor cast doubt on the prosecution, the eye‑witnesses were unreliable, and the accused's injuries were unexplained. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s conclusions were untenable and that the evidence supported conviction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had examined the evidence in detail, its conclusions were neither irrational nor perverse, and the cumulative infirmities identified by the High Court made the defence version more probable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of alleged discrepancies in the FIR timing, missing hospital memo, delay in FIR copy, and witness credibility.
Whether the appellate court can interfere with the High Court's factual findings on the prosecution's case.
Whether the identified infirmities sufficiently probabilise the defence version to warrant acquittal.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCacquittalappellate reviewFIR timingevidence analysiswitness credibilitycriminal law

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 9

STATE OF U.P. A
v
MUTAHIR MIAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 2002)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Conviction under- Acquittal
by High Court - Justification of - On facts, held: Justified - c
The evidence was properly analysed by High Court - View of
High Court was possible and not irrational or perverse - Cu-
m u /a tive effect of infirmities pointed out by High Court
probabalised the defence version.
The prosecution case was that on the fateful day at D
9.30 A.M., when the informant along with his brother, (de-
ceased) and another person was on the way, the accused
challenged them. When deceased questioned him, ac-
cused stabbed him thrice. The informant in order to save
his brother, attacked the accused with a knife, resulting E
in several injuries on the person of accused.
The trial court believed the version of prosecution
and convicted accused under s. 302 IPC. On appeal, High
Court directed acquittal on the grounds that the prosecu-
tion version that the first information report was lodged F
at 10.15 A.M. was not proved; that the memo which was
stated to have been received from the Civil Hospital was
not brought on record; that the existence of the FIR at
10.15 A.M. was belied by the fact that after about six hours,
the copy of the FIR was reached to the Doctor who has G.
conducted the post mortem; that so called eye-witnesses
were not believable and that the serious injuries on the
accused were not explained. Aggrieved, State filed the
instant appeal.
9 H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

;.._,-
-A Dismissing the appeal,, the Court
HELD : The High Court analysed the evidence in
great detail to conclude about the non acceptability of the
prosecution version. The cqnclusions of the High Court
cannot be termed as irrational or perverse. The view ex-
B pressed by the High Court is a possible view. Th,e cumu-
lative effect of the infirmities pointed out, probabilise the
.\-
defence version. [Para-7] [12-D]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
c No. 1053 of 2002
From the final Jud~ment and Order dated 7.9.2001 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.
2937 of 1980
T.N. Si.ngh, Rajeev Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra for the
D
Appellant.
Jetendra Singh and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for
the parties.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing acquittal of the re-
spondent who faced trial for alleged commission of offence pun-
F ishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short 'the Act'). The learned Sessions Judge, Rampur in S.T. I
~
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. //
G
3. In appeal, the High Court found certain vital discrepan-
cies in the prosecution version and directed acquittal. r
4: The prosecution version, as unfolded during trial is as
follows.
H

~~,i.-,
STATE OF U.P. v. MUTAHIR MIAN 11
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

4. On 04.11.1979 at about 9.30A.M. when the informant A
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 cross-
ing by accused Mutahir Mian, who challenged them by saying
"Bahadur Aa rahe hain". On this the deceased questioned him. B
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- c
law Yakub Khan· and younger brother Shakirullah with the in-
struction to carry him to the hospital, Zahidullah immediately pro-
ceeded 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,
0
Rampur, at about 10.15A.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.L lqtadar Hussain Rizvi (PW-8).
5. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was E
filed and the accused faced trial. The Trial Court, as noted above,
found the prosecution version to be cogent and recorded con-
viction. 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 F
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 10.15A.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:·· G
Apart from that, thirdly, the so called eye-witnesses. were not
believable. It was also noticed that serious injuries on the ac-
cused were not explained.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant- State submitted that
the conclusions of the High Court to direct acquittal are not sus- H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A tainable. 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 Sec-
tion 307 IPC. Subsequently, on receipt of the memo from the
B hospital, it was altered to Section 302 IPC. It was also submit-
ted that merely because there was some delay in sending copy
of the FIR to the Doctor, i.e. for about six hours, that cannot be a
ground for acquittal. Finally, it was supmitted that the evidence
of the witnesses was clear and cogent.
C 7. We find t.hat 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 infir-
D mities pointed out, probabilise the defence version.
'·
· 8. We find nothing infirm in the conclusions of the High
Court to warrant interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.

,
1~

r
"·
. \-·-·

•
1 11