9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Appeal Process 2. Evaluation of Evidence and Witnesses 3. Non-examination of Independent Witnesses 4. Age and Background of the Appellants 5. Sequence of Events and Alleged Assault 6. Defense Claims and Prosecution's Response 7. First Information Report (FIR) Timing and Integrity 8. General Diary Interpolation 9. Medical Evidence and Injuries 10. Presence of Blood and Scene of Occurrence 11. Weapon Recovery and Ballistic Evidence 12. High Court's Reversal of Acquittal Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Appeal Process The appeal is under the Enlargement of Supreme Court Jurisdiction Act read with Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973. The appellants obtained a certificate from the High Court of Allahabad, granting them the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. Evaluation of Evidence and Witnesses The appellants were acquitted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, due to insufficient evidence. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, finding the prosecution's case amply proved. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant and witnesses bore serious animus against the appellants, which was not disputed by the prosecution. 3. Non-examination of Independent Witnesses The High Court overlooked the Sessions Judge's finding that the prosecution failed to examine two independent witnesses, Bhikari and Shambhu, who were named in the FIR as eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge's adverse inference against the prosecution for this non-examination was justified. 4. Age and Background of the Appellants Bir Singh and Hukum Singh were both 14 years old at the time of the incident. Bir Singh was studying in the 8th Class, and his father, Ram Narain Singh, was employed in the Police Department and possessed a rifle, while his elder brother had a licensed gun. 5. Sequence of Events and Alleged Assault The incident occurred on 9th November 1967, involving an altercation over digging earth. Bir Singh, Hukum Singh, and Ram Dularey Singh allegedly returned armed and attacked Bans Gopal and P.W. Sughar. The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative and the failure to recover weapons. 6. Defense Claims and Prosecution's Response The defense claimed false implication due to enmity. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution did not attempt to exclude the possibility of the licensed weapons being used by the appellants. The Investigating Officer's failure to search for these weapons was highlighted. 7. First Information Report (FIR) Timing and Integrity The Sessions Judge doubted the FIR's timing, suggesting it was lodged on 10th November 1967, not 9th November 1967. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's speculative reasoning and reliance on additional evidence from Ejaz Hussain, which was deemed unreliable. 8. General Diary Interpolation The Sessions Judge found serious interpolation in the general diary, suggesting an attempt to falsely implicate Ram Dularey Singh. The High Court's dismissal of this as a clerical error was not accepted by the Supreme Court, which upheld the Sessions Judge's adverse inference against the prosecution. 9. Medical Evidence and Injuries The medical evidence did not align with the prosecution's account of P.W. Sughar's injuries. The Supreme Court noted the absence of explanations for certain injuries and inconsistencies in witness statements. 10. Presence of Blood and Scene of Occurrence The lack of blood marks at the alleged scene of the assault on P.W. Sughar raised doubts about the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court found this significant in questioning the authenticity of the occurrence as described by the prosecution. 11. Weapon Recovery and Ballistic Evidence The prosecution failed to prove the weapon used in the crime. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of examining Ram Narain Singh's and Vidya Vinod Singh's weapons, which was not done, casting further doubt on the prosecution's case. 12. High Court's Reversal of Acquittal The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal, as the Sessions Judge's view was reasonably possible based on the evidence and circumstances. Conclusion: The appeal is allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges. The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith.
|
