Case: State of U.P Vs. Nagau and Ors

FAZAL ALI, J. In this appeal by special leave, the respondents 1 and 2 along with other accused were charged under S. 302/149 and were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter the accused filed an appeal to the High Court of Allahabad which acquitted respondents Nagu and Rameshwar Prasad and upheld the conviction of others. The State came up to this Court by special leave to appeal which was granted and hence this appeal before us. Mr. Uniyal appearing for the State of U.P. has raised only two points in this case. He has submitted that the judgment of the High Court, so far as the acquittal of Nagu and Rameshwar Prasad is concerned, is extremely cryptic and it has not given any good reason for acquitting them. A detailed narrative of the occurrence has been given in the judgment of the Sessions Judge and the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same over again. The central evidence against the respondents particularly respondents Nos. 1 and 2 consists of P.Ws. 1, 13 and 15. The High Court has disbelieved the prosecution case so far as respondents were concerned on the ground that names of some witnesses were not mentioned in the F.I.R. although they were known to P.W. 2, Chhannu Singh, the informant. Another reason given by the High Court was that there was an earlier dispute as a result of which a complaint was filed but the name of the respondent Rameshwar Prasad was not mentioned therein. That dispute has nothing to do with the present occurrence. Thus the fact that the name of the respondent was not mentioned in that application has absolutely no relevance to the facts of the present case. The High Court, however, believed the evidence of Channu Singh, P.W. 1 and upheld the conviction of Surender Bahadur on that evidence. So far as the respondents are concerned, some of the eye-witnesses were not known to him and their names were not supplied to the eye-witnesses as admitted by him, by the investigating officer. Assuming that it was so, the evidence of those witnesses could be discarded but that would not discredit the evidence of Channu Singh whose evidence the High Court itself believed with respect to other accused. Moreover, the High Court completely overlooked the fact that apart from respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the name of P.W. 1 Channu Singh was also mentioned in the F.I.R. and this witness was fully known to the informant. This witness clearly proves the entire occurrence and the participation of the respondents in the occurrence. In the circumstances, therefore, there was absolutely no reason why the High Court should have disbelieved P.W. 1, Channu Singh and P.W. 15 Baboo Singh who have fully proved the occurrence. Mr. Pramod Swarup, in spite of his best efforts to support the judgment of the High Court, has not been able to convince us. This is not a case where the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge after giving sufficient reasons. Nor is it a case where another view is reasonably possible on the evidence. In the first place, the High Court has committed an error of law in disbelieving Channu Singh so far as respondents are concerned merely because some of the witnesses were not mentioned in the F.I.R. who were not known to Channu Singh. Secondly, the High Court has completely ignored the evidence of P. W. 15 who was mentioned in the F.I.R. and who has proved the occurrence as an eye-witness. In view of these circumstances, therefore, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court was manifestly wrong and cannot be sustained.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]Nor is it a case where another view is reasonably possible on the evidence. In the first place, the High Court has committed an error of law in disbelieving Channu Singh so far as respondents are concerned merely because some of the witnesses were not mentioned in the F.I.R. who were not known to Channu Singh. Secondly, the High Court has completely ignored the evidence of P. W. 15 who was mentioned in the F.I.R. and who has proved the occurrence as an. In view of these circumstances, therefore, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court was manifestly wrong and cannot be sustained.