Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly relied on the identified circumstances and its judgment was not perverse, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Summary

The incident occurred on 23 October 1979, where the State alleged that the accused committed murder and related offences under Sections 302, 149, 323, 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the accused, but the Allahabad High Court acquitted them, citing several doubts about the prosecution's case, including the non‑seizure of a blood‑stained axe, the absence of an informant or PW‑4 in the FIR, and inconsistencies between medical evidence and the alleged weapons used. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had wrongly discarded the eye‑witness testimony. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances highlighted by the High Court and held that the High Court’s reliance on those facts was proper and its judgment was not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the acquittal, and a bailable warrant issued earlier was discharged.

Issues considered

Whether the Allahabad High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of credibility doubts regarding the prosecution witnesses.
Whether the non‑seizure of a blood‑stained axe and the omission of certain witnesses in the FIR justify overturning the trial court’s conviction.
Whether the High Court's judgment can be characterized as perverse warranting interference by the Supreme Court.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 323

Subjects

murderculpable homicideIPC sections 302, 149, 323, 148, 147acquittalappealcredibility of witnessesevidentiary issuesSupreme Court of IndiaHigh Court judgmentperverse judgment

Judgment

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 233

STATE OF U.P. A
v.
RAMA KANT & ORS.
Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2004
MARCH 31, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
1
Appeal against acquittal - Conviction by trial court - Set
aside by High Court - On facts, held: High Court relied on
'-"'
various circumstances to hold accused persons not guilty - c
High Court's judgment cannot be said to be perverse to warrant
interference.
The present appeal is against the order of acquittal
passed by High court. D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : The High Court referred to a large number of
circumstances as to the credibility of the prosecution
version. Firstly, the non-seizure of a blood stained axe E
belonging to PW.1 at the spot of occurrence was a highly
suspicious circumstance. The presence of informant or
PW.4 was not indicated in the First Information Report.
....
The High Court also noticed that it was not the informant.
but one of the accused persons who made arrangement F
for shifting the deceased in injured condition to the
hospital. All these circumstances certainly had relevance
and the High Court rightly placed reliance on them to hold
that the accused persons were not guilty. In that view of
the matter High Court's judgment cannot be said to be G
perverse to warrant interference. [Para 6] [235-C-D]
f
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
"' No. 200 of 2004
233 H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 7 S.C.R.

A From the Judgement and Order dated 14.08.2002 of the lr
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal No.
1956 of 1981.

Sahdev Singh, Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Chandra Prakash
Pandey, for the Appellant.
B
Anil Kumar Gupta-II, for the Respondent.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
1

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
c 1. Heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel -...
for the ;espondents.

2. By the impugned judgment the High Court has directed
acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged
D commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'),
Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Some others were also
sentenced for offences relatable to Section 148 and 147 IPC.
3. The occurrence took place on 23/10/1979. According
E to the prosecution, the eye witnesses were PW.1, the
complainant, PW.4-the mother and PW.5 the wife of the
complainant. Though PW.3 was examined as alleged eye
witness, he did not support-2-the prosecution version. The ....
defence version was that it was PW.1 who was responsible for
F causing death of the deceased who happened to be his brother.
The trial Court, as noted above, found the evidence to be cogent
and credible and recorded conviction.
4. In appeal the stand taken was that the presence of PW.4
was doubtful. In the First Information Report lodged, there was
G no mention about PW, 1 and PW.4 having witnessed the
occurrence. Additionally, according to the so-called eye
witnesses, large number of injuries were caused by bricks bats
and sharp edged weapons. The medical evidence did not
' •
disclose injuries which could have been possible by sharp edged
H weapons and bricks. The High Court found that there were
STATE OF UP V. RAMA KANT & ORS. 235
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

several unexplained circumstances which cast doubt on the A
credibility of the prosecution version and directed acquittal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
the evidence of the eye witnesses should not have been
discarded by the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent
supported the judgment of the High Court. B
6. We find that the High Court has referred to a large
number of circumstances as to the credibility of the prosecution
version. Firstly, the non-seizure of a blood stained axe belonging
to PW.1 at the spot of occurrence was a highly suspicious c
circumstance. The presence of informant or PW.4 has not been
indicated in the First Information Report. The High Court also
noticed that it was not the informant but one of the accused
persons Jai Narain who had made arrangement for shifting the
deceased in injured condition to the hospital. All these
0
circumstances certainly have relevance and the High Court has
rightly placed reliance on them to hold that the accused persons
were not guilty. In that view of the matter High Court's judgment
cannot be said to be perverse to warrant interference.
7. The appeal fails and is dismissed. E
8. It is to be noted that accused No.1 has died during the
pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
9. The bailable warrants executed in terms of the order
dated 91212009 shall stand discharged.

D.G. Appeal dismissed.