State Of U.P vs Garibuddi @ Garibuddin & Ors

STATE OF U.P. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

GARIBUDDI @ GARIBUDDIN & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave has been

filed by the State of U.P. impugning the judgment of

acquittal rendered by the High Court reversing the

judgment of conviction of the Additional Sessions Judge,

Allahabad dated 30th November, 1981, whereby the three

accused respondents had been convicted under Section 302

of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment

for life. It is by now well-settled that interference

by this Court in an order of acquittal should be minimal

and only in the circumstance that the judgment of the

High Court was completely perverse and did not arise out

of the evidence.

Crl.A. No. 1522 of 2007 2

2. We have perused the judgment of the High Court

very carefully. Several reasons have been given by the

High Court for its decision. They are:

(i) that the identity of the assailants could not be

established as the incident had taken place at night and

though the oral evidence did indicate the presence of

lantern in the premises but the said lantern had neither

been shown in the site plan nor seized by the police,

and though the P.Ws. had deposed in their evidence in

Court that the accused had covered their heads only

whereafter they had been confronted with their

statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the full faces

had been muffled;

(ii) that the incident had been seen by a large number

of persons and that too from a distance of 20 paces and

as P.W. 2 Ram Niwas was living at some distance e he

could not have reached the place of incident to become

an eye witness as the incident had lasted for only 2

minutes;

(iii) that there was a gross enmity between the parties

as Garibuddin had lodged a report under Section 354 of

the IPC against the two eye witnesses viz. P.W. 1 Ram

Crl.A. No. 1522 of 2007 3

Shankar and P.W. 2 Ram Niwas; and

(iv) that the medical evidence did not support the

ocular version as pointed out by Dr. M.A. Haq who had

conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body.

3. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High

Court's opinion that the accused were entitled to the

benefit of doubt cannot be faulted in the circumstances.

We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

.....................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

......................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 25, 2011.