- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of U.P v. Gambhir Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
On 15-10-1979 at approximately 4:00 p.m. in Village Vikrampur, P.S. Kishni, Netra Pal Singh was fatally shot. According to the prosecution, the deceased, his wife Renuka Devi (PW-2), and his brother Hori Lal (PW-1) were working in their fields when three accused arrived armed with a rifle, a gun, and a country-made pistol and fired from behind, killing Netra Pal on the spot. The First Information Report was lodged at 8:35 p.m. the same day.
The Investigating Officer recorded statements of PW-1 and PW-2 the following day, while PW-3 Mithu Lal—named in the FIR as an eyewitness—was examined by police only on 27-11-1979, almost six weeks later.
The Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, convicted the three accused under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment (Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1980, judgment dated 6-2-1981). On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside the conviction on 4-4-1996, acquitting all three accused. A special-leave appeal was then filed before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s acquittal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s acquittal that disbelieved the testimony of the three alleged eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3).
- Whether the High Court correctly applied the principle that, when two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the view favouring the accused must prevail.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court’s assessment of each eyewitness:
- PW-3 Mithu Lal: His statement was recorded 1 month 11 days after the incident despite being named in the FIR, and evidence revealed he was a cousin of the deceased. The delay and relationship undermined his independence.
- PW-2 Renuka Devi: Multiple inconsistencies existed regarding her exact position at the time of shooting. Medical evidence showed the deceased had eaten about three hours earlier, yet PW-2 did not mention any meal though she claimed constant presence. The High Court found her presence doubtful.
- PW-1 Hori Lal: Although he stated he coincidentally witnessed the shooting while returning with a basket, the High Court noted prior animus towards the accused, lack of corroborative physical evidence (only two gunshot wounds, no rifle injury), and the fact that PW-3 did not corroborate the presence of PW-1 or PW-2.
The Supreme Court held that these reasons created a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s version. It reiterated the settled law that if two views of the evidence are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. Finding the High Court’s view plausible, the Court refused to re-appreciate the evidence in a manner that would reverse an acquittal.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed; High Court acquittal affirmed.
The immediate consequence is that the accused remain acquitted, and the conviction recorded by the trial court stands nullified. The decision reinforces the jurisprudential principle that appellate courts should not interfere with an acquittal when the view taken by the lower court is reasonably possible on the evidence.
Judgment
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 4-4-1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 1991. The High Court, by its impugned judgment and order, allowed the appeal of the appellants herein and acquitted them of the charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1980 by his judgment and order of 6-2-1981.
2. We have heard counsel for the parties.
3. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 15-10-1979 at about 4.00 p.m in Village Vikrampur, PS Kishni. The case of the prosecution is that PW 1 Hori Lal, the deceased Netra Pal Singh, and his wife Renuka Devi, PW 2 were working in the fields. The deceased sent his brother PW 1 to bring a basket. His wife felt thirsty and they were going to drink water nearby when all the three accused arrived there armed with rifle, gun and country-made pistol. All of them fired from behind as a result of which Netra Pal fell down and died on the spot. PW 2 Renuka Devi raised an alarm. PW 1 who was returning from the village after fetching a basket also saw the entire occurrence and so did Mithu Lal, PW 3 who was passing by. PW 1 Hori Lal rushed to the police station and the first information report was recorded at 8.35 p.m The investigating officer came to the place of occurrence and stayed overnight in the village. On the following day he recorded the statement of PW 1 and PW 2. The statement of PW 3 was recorded on 27-11-1979 i.e almost a month and 11 days later.
4. The trial court relying upon these three eyewitnesses found the appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC. We are told that the first appellant Ranbir Singh has since died.
5. We have considered the reasons recorded by the High Court for not relying upon the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. No reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW 3 because he was examined by the police on 27-11-1979 while the occurrence took place on 15-10-1979 and even though he was mentioned as an eyewitness in the FIR, he was projected as an independent witness but it appears from the evidence of PW 2 that he happens to be the cousin of the deceased. In the circumstances, PW 3 cannot be considered to be a reliable witness. So far as PW 2 is concerned, the High Court has discussed her evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that her presence at the time of occurrence was doubtful. The medical evidence disclosed that the deceased must have taken his meals about three hours before the occurrence since semi-digested food was found in his stomach. If PW 2 was really with her husband since morning, she would have certainly stated about their having taken food. She, in the course of her deposition claimed to be at different places when the occurrence took place. At one place she stated that she was to the north of her husband, and at another place she stated that she was behind her husband, and later that she was 20-25 steps behind her husband. The shots were fired from behind. Having considered the discrepancies in the evidence of Renuka Devi, PW 2 the High Court did not find it safe to rely on her testimony.
6. So far as Hori Lal, PW 1 is concerned, he had been sent to fetch a basket from the village and it was only a matter of coincidence that while he was returning he witnessed the entire incident. The High Court did not consider it safe to rely on his testimony because his evidence clearly shows that he had an animus against the appellants. Moreover, his evidence was not corroborated by objective circumstances. Though it was his categorical case that all of them fired, no injury caused by rifle was found, and, only two wounds were found on the person of the deceased. Apart from this PW 3 did not mention the presence of either PW 1 or PW 2 at the time of occurrence. All these circumstances, do create doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The presence of these three witnesses becomes doubtful if their evidence is critically scrutinised. Maybe it is also possible to take a view in favour of the prosecution, but since the High Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded a finding in favour of the accused, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that if on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred.
7. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
Alert