State Of U.P vs Smt. Chandrawati
- AIRAIR 1998 SC 2930
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where eyewitness evidence undergoes material improvement or embellishment as compared to the initial version given to police, and such infirmity affects the credibility of the witnesses' account, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and acquittal is warranted, even if a trial court has convicted on the basis of such evidence. Where an accused is alleged to have acted with common intention under Section 34 IPC but the evidence does not establish that the accused entertained the requisite common intention to commit the offence, the accused must be acquitted of that charge notwithstanding conviction by the trial court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.T. Nanavati Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal Arvind Kumar, I.P. Singh and A.S. Pundit, Advs. for the appellant Dharam Bir Vohra, Adv. for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
NANAVATI, J.
In these two appeals the State is challenging the acquittal of Chandrawati who was convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC but acquitted by the High Court.
The trial court had convicted her on the basis of evidence of two eye witnesses P.W.2, Ram Lalit, aged about 11 years and P.W.3, Jagdei, aged about 7 years. The High Court on reappreciation of their evidence found that the witnesses had made an improvement in their evidence over their initial version before the police as regards the manner in which P.W.3 Jagdei received the injury which was alleged to have been caused by Chandrawati. In view of this infirmity in their evidence and also because Chandrawati had taken no part in beating deceased Ranjana the High Court held that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that Chandrawati entertained a common intention with her husband to kill Ranjana. She was convicted under Section 307 for causing injury to P.W. 3 Jagdei but as pointed out by the High Court both the witnesses were contradicted on these points. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not wrong in giving benefit of doubt to Chandrawati as regards the said injury alleged to have been caused by her. The High Court has given good reasons for acquitting her of both the offences and we see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court. These appeals are therefore dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free