State of U.P. Vs. Ram Nagina Singh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1040 of 1995
Petitioner: State of U.P.
Respondent: Ram Nagina Singh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1040 of 1995
Judges: U.C. BANERJEE & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 29, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302/34 with Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Conviction by trial court with aid of Section 34 – No role allocated to appellant – Not named in statements under section 161 Cr. PC. Acquittal of appellant by High Court held to be justified. No interference called for. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The State is in appeal against the order of acquittal. All the three accused persons charged under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and also under section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, however, acquitted all the three accused persons on the ground of non compatibility of the oral evidence between the witnesses examined in support of the prosecution. The High Court has been rather candid enough to record that, as a matter of fact, the trial court has misread the evidence in its true and proper perspective.
2. Incidentally, the factual score depicts that of the three accused persons, two accused persons are already dead and the third one is alive and as such the appeal is maintained against the third accused person namely Ram Nagina Singh.
3. Apart from the factual score, their being no perversity in the order of the High Court since the view taken by the High Court cannot but be termed to be a view plausible and the interference of this Court is not called for in the contextual facts. The present state of affairs, as notice above, however, warrants this Court further to add that in any event there exist no evidence available on record against the surviving respondent namely Ram Nagina Singh. The learned sessions judge, however, recorded that while on the factual score no specific role has been assigned to Ram Nagina Singh, neither the 161 statements of the witnesses involve Ram Nagina Singh as an active participant and as such the learned sessions judge thought it prudent to convict the accused under section 302/34 IPC for imprisonment for life. It is this scrutiny which has prompted the High Court, on the wake of the available evidence on record especially against Ram Nagina Singh to record a finding of acquittal. We do not find any perversity therein and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
4. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.
1. The State is in appeal against the order of acquittal. All the three accused persons charged under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and also under section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, however, acquitted all the three accused persons on the ground of non compatibility of the oral evidence between the witnesses examined in support of the prosecution. The High Court has been rather candid enough to record that, as a matter of fact, the trial court has misread the evidence in its true and proper perspective.
2. Incidentally, the factual score depicts that of the three accused persons, two accused persons are already dead and the third one is alive and as such the appeal is maintained against the third accused person namely Ram Nagina Singh.
3. Apart from the factual score, their being no perversity in the order of the High Court since the view taken by the High Court cannot but be termed to be a view plausible and the interference of this Court is not called for in the contextual facts. The present state of affairs, as notice above, however, warrants this Court further to add that in any event there exist no evidence available on record against the surviving respondent namely Ram Nagina Singh. The learned sessions judge, however, recorded that while on the factual score no specific role has been assigned to Ram Nagina Singh, neither the 161 statements of the witnesses involve Ram Nagina Singh as an active participant and as such the learned sessions judge thought it prudent to convict the accused under section 302/34 IPC for imprisonment for life. It is this scrutiny which has prompted the High Court, on the wake of the available evidence on record especially against Ram Nagina Singh to record a finding of acquittal. We do not find any perversity therein and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
4. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.
