Holding

A conviction cannot be set aside merely because a co‑accused was acquitted; the appellate court must examine the evidence and demonstrate why the trial‑court’s findings are erroneous.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Allahabad High Court’s order acquitting Govind Das and others, which had set aside convictions under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and rejected a death‑sentence confirmation. The High Court had relied mainly on the acquittal of a co‑accused and a claim of lack of corroboration, without a detailed analysis of the trial‑court evidence. The Supreme Court held that such an approach is untenable; an appellate court must scrutinise the evidence and explain why the trial‑court’s findings are erroneous, and the mere acquittal of a co‑accused does not, by itself, invalidate the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to dispose of the appeals and the death‑sentence reference within six months. The appeals were therefore partly allowed.

Issues considered

The effect of an acquittal of a co‑accused on the conviction of other accused under IPC s.302 r/w s.34.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction without a detailed analysis of the evidence.
Whether the reference for confirmation of a death sentence can be rejected on the basis asserted by the High Court.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

convictionacquittalco-accusedevidence analysisdeath sentenceIPC s.302IPC s.34appellate reviewhigh courtsupreme courtcriminal law

Judgment

)

).· .,...
A STATEOFU.P.
'-..
v.
GOVIND DAS@ GUDDA AND ANR.

AUGUST 10, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Penal Code, I 860: -+.
ss.302134-Trial Court acquitting one accused-Another accused
c sentenced to death and rest awarded life imprisonment-Appeal and reference
relating to death sentence-High Court set aside conviction-On appeal,
held, approach of High Court is unsustainable-Mere fact that co-accused
had been acquitted is not sufficient to discard prosecution version in its
totality-While setting aside order of Conviction, High Court ought to have
D analysed the evidence to show as to how the conclusion of trial Court as
regards acceptability of evidence of any witness was erroneous-That has
not been done-Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration. ;
t-
The Sessions Judge had convicted the respondents for offence
punishable under s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC. Each of the accused persons were
E sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Respondent No.I was sentenced to
death for offence punishable under s.302 IPC. Another accused 'S' was
acquitted by the trial Court. The two accused persons preferred appeals before
the High Court and reference was made relating to death sentence awarded.
By the impugned order, the High Court found the accused persons innocent
and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded. Hence these appeals.
F
Partly allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court, the \
Court

HELD: The approach of the High Court is clearly unsupportable. It
did not bother to even analyse the evidence and/or to refer to any finding
G recorded by the trial court as to in what way the evidence was not acceptable.
The mere fact that the co-accused had been acquitted is not sufficient to discard
the prosecution version in its totality. It is not understood as to what was
meant by the High Court by stating that there was no corroboration of ,,:
'investigation'. This is not the way an appeal or reference for confirmation of
H 968
STATEOFU.P. v. GOVINDDAS@GUDDA[PASAYAT,J.] 969
death sentence is to be dealt with. When the High Court was setting aside A
the order of conviction·the least that was required to be done was analysis of
the evidence to show as to how the conclusions of the trial Court as regards
acceptability of the evidence of any witness was erroneous. That apparently
has not been done. (Para 4) (970-E, F, GI

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. I 049- B
1050of2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2005 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 4978 of 2002 and Criminal
Appeal No. 5234 of 2002 and Reference No. 8 of 2002.
c
,.
\ Sahdev Singh, Javed Mahmud Rao and Shahid Ali Rao for the Appellants.

Sanjay Jain, Anand Thakral, Mukesh Tyagi and Aditya Kumar for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D

DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are against the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court by which it directed acquittal of the respondents.
Before the High Court the respondents had questioned correctness of the E
judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, convicting the
respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') Each of the accused w~s
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default
stipulation. Respondent-Govind Das was sentenced to death for an offence p
punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is to be noted that there were two
deceased persons; one was Loknath and the other was Naval Kishore. Accused
Sushila was acquitted by the trial Court. Since accused Govind Das was
awarded death sentence, the matter was referred to the High Court for
confirmation of the sentence. The two accused persons preferred appeals
before the High Court and a reference was made relating to death sentence G
awarded. By the impugned order, the High Court found the accused persons
innocent and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded.

3. Though many points were urged in support of the appeals, we find
it unnecessary to go into those because of the casual and summary way of
H
)

970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A disposal of the two appeals and the reference relating to the death sentence.
The High Court after analyzing the evidence and stand of the accused persons
and the prosecution in its judgment running into 23 pages (in the paper book
to this .Court) allowed the appeals of the accused persons with the following
-
observations:

B ..·"We have carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. In our opinion
,. implicit evidence cannot be placed on the testimonies of both eye
witnesses. They have implicated Smt. Sushila in the crime. The
involvement of Smt. Sushi la was to reconcile the conflict in direct and
medical evidence. Since the punctured wound on the body of Lok
Nath were of small dimensions, therefore, weapon Barachhi and pointed
c Sariya was introduced by the witnesses. After the acquittal of Smt.
Sushila punctured wound remains unexplained. Learned Sessions
Judge has already held that Ballam which is alleged to be recovered
on the pointing out of Jai Kishan is not weapon of crime. There is no
corroboration of any other independent testimony or of medical
D evidence or investigation."

In view of the discussion made above, both the appeals are
allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court are
set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants
are in jail. They shail be released forthwith if not wanted in any other
E case. The reference made by learned Sessions Judge for the
confirmation of death sentence is rejected."

4. To say the least, the approach of the High Court is clearly
unsupportable. It did not bother to even analyse the evidence and/or to refer
to any finding recorded by the trial court as to in what way the evidence was
F not acceptable. The mere fact that the co-accused had been acquitted is not
sufficient to discard the prosecution version in its totality. It is not understood
as to what was meant by the High Court by stating that there was no
corroboration of 'investigation'. This is not the way an appeal or reference
for confirmation of death sentence is to be dealt with. When the High Court
G was setting aside the order of conviction the least that was required to be
done was analysis of the evidence to show as to how the conclusions of the
trial Court as regards acceptability of the evidence of any witness was
erroneous. That apparently has not been done.

5. Therefore, without expressing ariy opinion on the merits of the case,
H we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter
STATE OF U.P. v. GOVIND DAS@GUDDA [PASA YAT, J.] 971
to it for fresh consideration. Since the matter is pending since long, we A
request the High Court to explore· the possibility of disposal of the appeals
and the reference made to it relating to confirmation of death sentence within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The
appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

D.G. Appeals partly allowed. B