Supreme Court of India
BASUDEO YADAVversusSURENDRA YADAV & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 971
- Decided
- 25 August 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the trial court's conviction because the identification of the accused was possible and no material procedural defect existed.
Summary
The case concerns the murder of Vyasdeo Yadav, who was allegedly dragged and shot by a group of armed men. The trial court convicted the accused under sections 364 r/w 302, 302 r/w 149, 201 and 148 IPC, but the Patna High Court acquitted them, holding that identification was impossible and that procedural lapses (delay in filing FIR and filing at a wrong police station) vitiated the prosecution case. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only on compelling reasons and that the High Court had not demonstrated any error in the trial court's findings. The Court found that identification of the accused was feasible despite darkness, the FIR was filed as directed, and the presence of undigested food was irrelevant to the time of death. Consequently, the High Court's acquittal was set aside and the trial court's conviction restored.
Issues considered
- The scope of appellate review of an acquittal and the standards for interference
- Whether the eyewitnesses could identify the accused despite the night-time conditions
- Whether the alleged delay and filing of the FIR at a different police station amounted to a fatal procedural defect
- Whether the presence of undigested food affected the determination of time of death
- Whether the evidence satisfied the requirements for conviction under sections 364 r/w 302, 302 r/w 149, 201 and 148 IPC
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378, s. 386
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 201, s. 302, s. 364
Subjects
identification of accusedappellate review of acquittalmiscarriage of justicecircumstantial evidencemurderkidnappingFIR delayundigested foodpresumption of innocence
Judgment
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 593
BASUDEO YADAV A
v.
SURENDRA YADAV & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.687 of 2001)
AUGUST 25, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
' SHARMA, JJ.]
* Penal Code, 1860 - ss 364 rlw s.302, s. 302 rlw s.149
and s.201, s.148 - Conviction under - Accused armed with c
weapons formed a group and forcibly dragged deceased
towards river bank in night hours - Incident witnessed by
witnesses - Next day dead body of deceased found -
Conviction - However, acquittal by High Court -
Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - High Court acted
0
on surmises and conjectures and disturbed the findings
recorded by trial court- It did not record a finding that analysis
of evidence and conclusions arrived at by trial court were
erroneous, thus, was not justified in 'drawing different
conclusions - Identification of accused was possible - Since
time of death is not given, presence of undigested food is of E
no consequence - There was no delay in lodging of FIR -
Also, witness categorically stated as to why they went to the
particular police station - Thus, order of trial court upheld -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378
F
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 378 and 386
- Appeal against acquittal - Powers of appellate court -
Discussed.
According to the prosecution case, on the fateful
day, around 8.00 PM, all the accused persons armed G
with deadly weapons formed a group and forcibly
dragged away VY towards river bank. PW 1, PW 4 and
PW 3 saw the incident but ·they concealed themselves.
However, PW 3 came out. and informed BS, brother of
593 H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
A VY-PW6. Thereafter, PW 6 along with PW 3 and PW 2
went towards the place where VY was dragged by the
accused but did not find any trace of the whereabouts
. of VY. PW6, PW 3 and PW 2 then went to the house of
Superintendent of Police; Thereafter, they went to
B Muffasil PS as being directed, and lodged information
by giving fardbeyan. On basis of fardbeyan FIR was
registered and was sent to Kotwali PS for investigation
within whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. PW 1
returned home and PW 4 went to the house of PW 6. The
c next day PW 5 found the body of VY and informed PW 6
and the police. Inquest was held over the dead body. The
doctor conducted the post mortem. He opined that the
injuries were caused by fire arm and were ante mortem
. in nature. Investigations were carried out. Witnesses were
examined. 14 persons faced trial. During trial two accused
0
.··"'"t·r~·".died and two absconded. Trial court convicted and
$e'i1J~gced .. the remaining accused u/s 364 r/w s.302 and
s. 3(fa-rJijV1i~·:~149;'and s.201 and s.148 IPC. During penc;tency
of appeal: 3 accusJtd died. High Court acquitted the
rema·ining accused .. H~,ce the present appeal.
E "'·
Allowing the appeal; t~l:le Court
'
HELD: 1.1 There is no( :embargo on the appellate
court reviewing the evidence ·.upon which an order of
acquittal is based. Generally, tli,e order of acquittal shall
F not be interfered with because the presumption of
innocence of the accused is 1further strengthened by
acquittal. The golden thread w~ich runs through the web
of administration of justice in" criminal cases is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the
G case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to
the accused should be adopted. The paramount
consideration of the court is ·to ensure that miscarriage
of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which
H may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
BASUDEO YADAV v. SURENDRA YADAV 595
& ORS.
"-+( from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where A
admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate court to re-appreciate the evid~nce where the
accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really
committed any offence or not. [Para 8] [602-E-H] B
+ 1.2 The principle to be followed by the appellate
court considering the appeal against the judgment of
acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling
and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned
judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and c
convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated
in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.
[Para 8] [603-A B]
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P, 2003 (3) SCC 21 -
D
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1973 (2)
~ SCC 793; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat 1996
(9) SCC 225; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana 2000 (4)
-' SCC 484; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar 2003 (11) SCC
519; State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh 2003 (11) SCC 271;
State of Punjab v. Pho/a Singh 2003 (11) SCC 58; Suchand E
Pal v. Phani Pal 2003 (11) SCC 527 and Sachchey Lal
Tiwari v. State of UP. 2004 (11) SCC 410 - Relied on.
2. In the instant case, the trial court was justified in
holding that identification was possible. So far as the F
finding relating to undigested food is concerned, the
'~
doctor said that death had occurred within 24 hours of
the consumption. Since the time is not given, the
presence of undigested food is of no consequence. So
far as going to wrong police station is concerned, the
G
wit~ess categorically stated as to why they went to the
·k particular police station. Their specific stand was that
they had gone to the Superintendent of Police who had
asked them to go to the particular police station, because
the occurrence relating to kidnapping had taken place
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
A within the jurisdiction of that police station. In any event
immediately after the FIR was lodged at the police station
the same was sent to the correct police station.
Therefore, ·there was no question of delay in lodging of
FIR as held by the High Court. PW1 specifically stated
B about the injuries sustained by pistol. Doctor's evidence
shows that the injuries were caused by firearms. One
thing is significant that the High Court has nowhere
stated that the analysis of evidence and the conclusions
arrived at by the Trial Court were erroneous. Without
c recording such a finding, the High Court was not justified
in drawing different conclusions without indicating any
reason to j1;1stify the s.ame. Such a course is
impermissible. Even if a different view is possible to be
drawn, it should be specifically held that the view taken
by the Trial Court was not supportable by evidence. It
0
would not be possible for the High Court to act on
surmises and conjectures and disturb the findings
recorded by the Trial Court. Thus, the judgment pf High
Court is set aside and that of trial court is restored.
E [Paras 11 and 15] [606-8, 607-A-G]
S. Sudershan Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P 2006 (10)
SCC 163; lsrar v. State of U.P 2005 (9) SCC 616; Munivel
v. State of T.N. 2006 (9) SCC-394 and State of U.P v. Satish
2005 (3) sec 114 -:-- referred 'to.
F Case Law Reference
2003 (3) sec 21 Relied on Para 8
1973 (2) sec 793 Relied on Para 8
1996 (9) sec 225 Relied on Para 8
G
2000 (4) sec 484 Relied on Para 8
2003 (11) sec 519 Relied on Para 8
2003 (11) sec 211 Relied on Para 8
2003 c11 > sec 58 Relied on Para 8
H
BASUDEO YADAV v. SURENDRA YADAV 597
& ORS.
2003 (11) sec 527 Relied on Para 8 A
2004 (11) sec 410 Relied on Para 8
2006 (10) sec 163 Referred to Para 9
2005 (9) sec 616 Referred to Para 10
2006 (9) sec 394 Referred to Para 12 B
2005 (3) sec 114 Referred to Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal,
Appeal No. 687 of 2001
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2000 of
c
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No.
252 of 1987
Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Pavan_Kumar, Rameshwar Pd.
Goyal and Mrinay Singh for the Appellant. o
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Sudhanshu Saran, Gopal Singh,
Manish Kumar, Rudreshwar Singh, Gopal Jha and Sanjay Jain
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of acquittal passed by a Division Bench of the
Patna High Court. 14 persons faced trial for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Section 364 read
~ with Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of F
~ the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 201
and Section 148 IPC. During trial two accused persons died
and two absconded. In other words, ten persons faced trial
and each one of them was convicted and sentenced to various
imprisonments. During pendency of the appeal before the High G
-~ Court A 1, A9 and and A 10 died and, therefore, the appeal
filed by them was held to be abated.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 19.3.1986 at about 8.00 p.m., Vyasdeo Yadav H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
A (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') of village Sheo
Nagar, P.S. Kotwali (Kasim Bazar) District Munger, went
towards Sheo Nagar School to attend the call of nature with
a water jug and when he reached near Sheo Nagar School,
all of a sudden, all the accused persons together with Kashi
B Mahton, Ram Gulam Mehton (both died during the penden~y
of trial of the case), Nageshwar Mahton and Ram Balak
Mahton (absconders) came there in a group from the northern
direction and another group from the southern direction, being
armed with deadly weapons like gun, rifle etc. and they forcibly
c took away and dragged Vyasdeo Yadav towards river bank.
Such dragging was seen by Muneshwar Yadav (PW1) and
Shyam Yadav (PW4) who were then returning home from their
"Parwal field and seeing such occurrence lest they be attached,
concealed themselves behind a ditch and therefrom they could
identify all the accused persons including absconders and the
0
deceased. Such dragging and taking away was also seen by
another Mantu Yadav (PW3) who had also gone nearby for
call of nature at a distance of about one rassi (equal to 110
cubes). He also became frightened and also concealed
-
himself and after the deceased Vyasdeo Yadav was dragged
E towards river bank for considerable distance, then this Mantu
Yadav (PW3) came out and on the Patna-Munger road, he
found the informant Basudeo Yadav, the brother of the
deceased Vyasdeo Yadav and gave information in detail. Then
Basudeo Yadav in companion with Mantu Yadav (PW3) and
F Baleshwar Yadav (PW2) went towards the place where the
deceased was dragged by the accused-appellants but they
could not find any trace of the whereabouts ofthe deceased
as to where he had been taken. Then Basudeo Yadav (PW6)
accompanied by Mantu Yadav (PW3) and Baleshwar Pd.
G Yadav (PW-2) went to the residence of Superintendent of
Police (Munger) on a rickshaw and there, on being directed
by the Superintendent of Police concerned, (PW6) with his
companions went to Muffasil P.S. and lodged information by
giving fardbeyan which was recorded on that very night i.e. on
H 19.6.1993 at about 23 hours at the Muffasil P.S. It may be
BASUDEO YADAV v. SURENDRA YADAV 599
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
mentioned here that other two eye witnesses Muneshwar Yadav A
(PW1) and Shyam Yadav (PW4) after seeing the occurrence
respectively went to their homes. Shyam Yadav (PW4) went
to the house of Basudeo Yadav first and there he learnt that
after, knowing about this incident Basudeo Yadav had already
left for police station. In the fardbeyan, a vivid description was B
given about the taking away of the deceased by the accused
appellants including their other c9mpanions as mentioned
above. On the basis of such fardbeyan (Ext. No.1) formal FIR
was registered and then the same was sent to Kotwali P.S.
for investigation as the place of occurrence wherefrom the t
deceased was dragged falling within the jurisdiction of Kotwali
P.S. (Kasim Bazar). On the next day of the occurrence
Dhirendera Yadav (PW.5) found the dead body near Sita
Charan and from there he brought the dead body by boat to
steamerghat and then information was given to the informant
0
and police. From the steamerghar the deadbody was brought
- home at Sheonagar and inquest was held over the dead body
and then the same was sent for post mortem examination. Dr.
Shashi Bhushan (PW7) held autopsy over the dead body of
Vyasdeo Yadav and found the following injuries on his person:
E
1) One lacerated circular wound 1/3" in diameter with
inverted margins X brain cavity deep on left temple.
2) Lacerated wound Yi" x Yi" x brain cavity deep with
everted margins on right side of head 1' above the
prinna of right ear. F
3) One desection left temporal and .right pertial bones
found fractured-both injuries communicating with
laceration and haemorrhage in both brain cavities.
4) Lacerated wound circular 1/3" in diameter with G
inverted margins with left thorasic cavity deep with
everted margins on back of right upper chest.
On desection both wounds were found
communicating with each other fracture of 3rct and
H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
-· ----"A· -- 4th ribs of left side with laceration of lung and plurra
both right and left. Both chest cavities were full of
blood clots.
5) Lacerated would circular 1/3" in diameter with
inverted margins on back of left chest on coastal
B border x abdominal cavity deep.
On desection spleen found lacerated and multiple
perporation in small intestine. A bullet was found
, lodged in the paritonial cavity which was full of blood
. and clot. The bullet was preserved and sent with the
c
constable in a sealed container.
According to the doctor, all the injuries were caused by
fire arm and were anti mortem in nature and death was caused ·
due to shock and Haemorrhage resulting from the above
D injuries.
Kameshwar Pd. Sinha (PW 8) took up the charge of the
case after the investigation was over and he only submitted
chargesheet. PWs. 9 and ·10 are formal witnesses proving
-
E formal FIR and inquest report etc.
3. The accused persons pleaded that they have' been
falsely implicated because of land dispute, though they did
not deny the homicidal death of the deceased. It was defence
version that he was murdered near Saheb Diara at Jafar Nagar
F while he was returning from the house of the relations betwe_en
4/5 p.m. on the day of occurrence. After concocting a story at
the P.S, the FIR was lodged with the motivated purpose. One
witness was examined who happened to be a Priest and
according to him he had seen from a distance that the
G deceased and his relatives were surrounded by unknown
persons with armed weapons and deceased was killed. PWs.
1, 3 and 4 were stated to be eye witnesses along with PW 6
who was the informant. The Trial Court accepted the
prosecution version and convicted the persons.
H 4. In appeal, before the High Court it was contended that
BASUDEO YADAV v. SURENDRA YADAV 601
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
·¥
the whole prosecution case is based on surmises and A
conjectures except the so called taking away by the accused-
appellant of the deceased. There is no other material to show
as to who had been the deceased, and whether there was a
consensus of taking away of the deceased by the accused-
l..
appellant. Further, the so called eye witnesses PWs. 3 and 4 B
-+ are got up witnesses and they were inimical to the accused
persons. Additionally, they stated that the identification from
_,
the long distance in the night hours was impossible and;
'
' therefore, the prosecution version is without any foundation.
~
The High Court found that there was no direct evidence and c
. '
the case was based on circumstantial evidence. The High
Court found that identification was not possible. The High Court
noted that instead of filing the FIR at the correct police station,
it was filed at a different police station and that gives an
impression that the genesis of the occurrence has been
D
-t twisted. It was held that the evidence relating to kidnapping
was inadequate. Accordingly, acquittal was directed.
- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Trial Court has dealt each of the factors which the High Court
found to be vulnerable. So far as distance is concerned, it is E
to be noted that the occurrence took place in the month of
June in the evening when the accused persons were last seen
in the company of the deceased. The evidence is clear and
cogent about the role played by the accused persons. So far
as the question of filing of FIR at wrong police station is F
--!... ~
concerned, it has been categorically stated by the witnesses
~
that they went to the Superintendent of Police who had directed
' them to file the same at a particular police station. It is also
submitted that the High Court erroneously stated that the
witnesses are not stating as to which of the accused came
G
from which direction. It is factually incorrect.
6. In response, leaned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the view taken by the High Court is a reasonable
one. PW3 specifically admitted that he was at a distance
from the place of occurrence. The dead body was found at a H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
~+--~
' / .
A distance of about , 10 Kms. There
I
were improvements in the
evidence of the PWs. It is also :submitted that conduct of the
witnesses is unusual anc:J immater'ial. With reference to the
' '
medieal evidence it was submitted that the defence version is
more probable. It is pointed out that time of death has not
B been specifically fixed. The',presence of und!gested foQd is a
pointer in that regard. -t-
7. Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand
submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the High
~ourt is not sustainable. While dealing with the question of
c identification, the High Court referred to some irrelevant
material like the evidence of DW1. It is strange that DW1 did
not inform anybody about the occurrence. If exception could
be taken to the witnesses going to the house of the informant
without going to the police station, the same logic is equally
D applicable to DW1. The High Court held that at the most PWs -~
-
stated to have seen the dragging and they have not stated to
have seen the killing.
,. . .
8. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing
the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based.
E Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with
because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs
through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases
is that if two views are possible on the evidenc_e adduced in
F )>-- ,)
the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
'other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of'
th~_court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented,
A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the
G guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a
) }-
case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast
upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence where
the accused has been acquitted, for':the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed
H any offence or not. (See Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P,
~ BASUDEO YADAV v. SURENDRA YADAV 603
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
·-V ~~2003 (3) SCC 21). The principle to be followed by the appellate
A
court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal
is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial
reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly
unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been
unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason· 8
~
--+ for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra- ( 19-13
(2) SCC 793), Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat
(1996 (9) SCC 225), Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000
(4) SCC 484), Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003 (11) C·
I SCC 519), State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh (2003 (11) SCC
' 271), State of Punjab v. Pho/a Sfngh (2003 (11) S~C 58),
Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal (2003 (11) SCC 527) and
Sachchey Lal Tiwari { State of U.P (2004 (11) SCC 410).
9. So far as identification is concerned, a few decisions of D
-4 this Court need to be noted. In S. -Sudershan Reddy and Ors.
- v. State of A.P. (2006 (10) sec 163) it was noted ·as. follows:
"19. In Nathuni Yadav and Others v. State of Bihar and
Another (1998 (9) SCC 238) this Court observed that
E
under what circumstances the lack of moon light or artificial
light does not per se preclude identification of the
assailants. It was noted as follows :-
"Even assuming that there was no moonlight then,
we have to gauge the situation catefully. The proximity F
- 4. at which the assailants would have confronted with
the injured, the possibility of some light reaching there
from the glow of stars, and the fact t.hat the murder
was committed on a roofless terrace are germane
factors to be borne in mind while judging whether the
G
victims could have had enough visibility to correctly
-~
identify the assailants. Over and above those factors,
we must bear in mind the further fact that the
assailants were no strangers to the inmates of the
tragedy-bound house, the eyewitnesses being well
H
I
-504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S. C.R.
+~
'
A acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the .
I
•'
killers. We are, therefore, not persuaded-to assume
that it would not have been possible for the victims to
see the assailants or that there was possibility for
making a wrong identification of them. We are keeping
B in mind the fact that even the assailants had enough j,
light to identify the victims whom they targeted without +-
any mistake from among those who were sleeping on
the terrace. If the light then available, though meager,
was enough for the assailants why should we think
c that the same light was not enough for the assailants
why should we think that the same light was not enough I
j
for the assailants why should we think that the same
light was not enough for the injured who would certainly
have pointedly focused their eyes on the faces of the
intruders standing in front of them. What is sauce for
D
the goose is sauce for the gander."
20. In the instant case, the time was about 7 P.M. in the
evening in the month of April. The position was again
reiterated in Bharasi and others v. State of M.P. (2002(7)
E SCC 239). It was inter alia noted as follows :
"In relation to the identification of the accused in the
darkness, the High Court has clearly stated that in
the month of April, the sun sets at about 7.00 p.m. in
the evening, the accused were known to the
F witnesses and could be identified even in faint )-~
darkness. Here again, the High Court has relied upon
the decision of this Court in the case of Nathuni
Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998 (9) SCC 238). The
High Court has also noticed that the enmity between
G the deceased and the appellants was not disputed."
-~
21. In Krishnan and Another v. State of Kera/a (1996(10)
sec 508 ) it was observed as follows :
"After giving our careful consideration to the facts
H and circumstances of the case and the evidence
BASUDEO YADAV v. SURENDRA YADAV 605
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~+ adduced, we do not find any reason to interfere with A
the well-reasoned judgment passed by the High Court
in convicting appellant-2 Vijaykumar. So far as the
contention of insufficient light is concerned, we may
indicate that in an open field on a cloudless starry
night, there was no difficulty in identifying the victim B
... by the)"assailants because of existence of some light
-+ with which identification was possible. PW1 being a
close relation of both the accused, there was no
difficulty for PW 1 to identify them. The accused were
also known to the other witness for which he could c
also identify them. So far as appellant- Vijaykumar is
concerned, PW1 had physically prevented him from
causing further injury on the deceased and there was
a tussle between the two. Hence there was no
difficulty for PW1 to identify Accused 2- Vijaykumar.
D
His deposition gets corroboration from the deposition
--,/-
of PW3 who had seen Vijaykumar at the place of
occurrence. PW3 had not seen Vijaykumar causing
any injury on the deceased because by the time PW3
came near the place of the incident and noticed the
incident, Vijaykumar had been prevented by PW1 E
and his knife h~d fallen on the ground."
10. Again in lsrar v. State of UP (2005 (9) SCC 616),
it was observed as follows:
"Coming to the plea relating to non-probability of F
). -..\._
identification, the evidence of PW-3 is very relevant. He has
stated that the occurrence took place at the time of isha
prayers which are concluded at about 9.30 p.m. There was
light of the moon as well as of the neighbouring houses and
the electric poles in the lane. The date of occurrence was 11th G
day of Lunar month and the place of occurrence is near the
mosque as well as many houses close by. Therefore,
identification was possible. Further a known person can be
identified from a distance even without much light. The
evidence of PW-3 has also been corroborated by the evidence H
,
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. "I
A of others. Evidence of PWs 3 to 5 proves that identification ~
was possible."
11.~ Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in holding that
identification was possible. The hypothetical conclusions of
the High Court which are based on surmises and conjectures
B on the other hand are unsupportable. ·
~
12. So far as aspect of last seen is concerned, in Munive/ +-
v. State of T.N. (2006 (9) SCC 394) this Court has held as under:
"27. Doctor, PW 11, exam.ined them at about 1 a.m. on
c 17 .3.1994, that is, immediately after the incident took
place. We do not find any material contradiction between
the ocular evidence and medical evidence. The
genuineness or otherwise of the said accident registers
is not in question. Correctness of the entries made therein
D is not in issue. Even no suggestion has been given ~o the
doctor that the entries made in the said accident registers )-.-
were not correct."
E
28. Only because the investigating officer was negligent
and did not make any attempt to recover the cut fingers of
-
PW 3, the same by itself would not be sufficient to discard
the- consistent evidence of all the eyewitnesses."
13. Similarly, in State of U.P v. Satish (2005 (3) SCC
114) it was noted as follows:
F "22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-
gap between the point of time when the accused and the· }-- <(
deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is
found dead is so small that possibility of any person other
than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
G impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively
establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused
}
when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons
coming in between exists. In the absence of any other
positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the
H deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous
BASUDEO YADAV v. SURENDRA YADAV 607
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-_,: to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this A
case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the
accused were seen together by witnesses PWs. 3 and 5,
in addition to the evidence of PW-2."
14. So far as the finding relating to undigested food is
concerned, the doctor said that death had occurred within 24 8
.._
--1 hours of the consumption. Since the time is not given, the
iJ. . .
presence of undigested food is of no consequence. So far as
going to wrong police station is concerned, the witness
categorically stated as to why they went to the particular police
station. Their specific stand was that they had gone to the c
Superintendent of Police who had asked thef'.D to 90 to the
particular police station, because the occurrence relating to
kidnapping had taken place within the jurisdiction of that police
station. In any·event immediately after the FIR was lodged at
the police station the same was sent to the corre.ct police D
-t station. Therefore, there was no question of delay in lodging
of FIR as held by the High Court. PW1 specifically stated
I, about the injuries sustained by pistol. Doctor's evidence shows
that the injuries were .caused by firearms. One thing. is
significant that the High Court has no where stated that the E
analysis of evidence and the conclusions arrived at by the
Trial Court were erroneous. Without recording such a finding,
the High Court was not justified in drawing different conclusions
without indicating any reason to justify the same. Such a course
is impermissible. Even if a different view is possible to be F
... ·-\ . drawn, it should be specifically held that the view taken by the
Trial Court was not supportable by evidence. It would not be
possible for the High Court to act on surmises and conjectures
and disturb the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
15. Above being the position, the judgment of the High G
Court is set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court is
restored.
16. The appeal is allowed.,
N.J. Appeal allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "identification of accused"Sign in to search