State Of Uttarakhand vs Deepu Verma @ Devendra Lal

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1700 OF 2014

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DEEPU VERMA @ DEVENDRA LAL … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The State of Uttarakhand has approached this Court

being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 17 th

July 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2010

thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein

and setting aside the judgment and order of the Court of

Sessions Judge, Almora (hereinafter referred to as “trial Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.02.19 court”) in S.T. No. 15 of 2009 dated 9th August 2010 12:50:34 IST Reason:

convicting the respondent herein for the offence punishable

1 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,

“IPC”) and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.1,000/-.

2. The prosecution’s case is that on the date of the

incident PW-1 (Ganeshi Lal) along with PW-2 (Nirmala

Verma), who is the daughter of PW-1 and PW-4 (Hira Devi),

wife of PW-1, were present in the courtyard. PW-1 heard a

cry coming from the courtyard of the victim, which was

situated adjacent to the courtyard of PW-1 and he saw the

victim being assaulted by the respondent-accused by a sickle.

On seeing PW-1, the accused ran away. Initially, the victim

was taken to the PHC Takula and thereafter shifted to Base

hospital at Almora. The victim succumbed to the injuries.

PW-1 lodged a complaint at Police Station Takula, District

Someshwar, Almora.

3. On the basis of the oral report of PW-1, a First

Information Report (FIR) came to be registered. After

completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed.

4. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions

Court, it was committed to the learned Sessions Judge,

Almora (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”). The learned

trial court, at the conclusion of the trial, convicted the

2 respondent and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for

life.

5. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent-accused

preferred an appeal before the High Court.

6. The learned Division Bench of the High Court, by the

impugned judgment and order allowed the appeal. Hence the

present appeal filed by the State.

7. We have heard Shri Kaushalpati Gautam, learned

Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing on behalf of the

appellant-State and Smt. S. Janani, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent.

8. Shri Kaushalpati Gautam, learned AAG appearing for

the appellant-State submits that the learned Division bench

of the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the well-

reasoned judgment and order passed by the trial court. It is

submitted that the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, who

are the eye-witnesses is consistent. He further submits that

the testimony of PW-1 is also duly corroborated by PW-3

(Shankar Lal Verma). It is also contended that merely

because there are inconsistencies in the evidence, the

testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded.

9. Shri Gautam submitted that all the witnesses are rustic

villagers and therefore minor inconsistencies and

3 contradictions would be natural in their evidence. It is

submitted that, however, insofar as the role of assault

attributed to the present respondent is concerned, all the

three eye-witnesses are consistent which is also corroborated

by PW-3. The learned AAG therefore submits that the present

appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment

and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court

should be quashed and set aside.

10. Smt. S. Janani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the respondent, on the contrary, submits that all the three

eye-witnesses have given totally inconsistent versions. She

submits that in view of the inconsistencies in their

testimonies, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly

allowed the appeal. It is submitted that the view taken by the

learned Division Bench of the High Court is a possible view

and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the present

appeal.

11. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties,

we have perused the material placed on record.

12. By now, the position of law with regard to the

interference by this Court in a finding of acquittal is very well

crystallized.

13. Unless the view taken by the High Court is found to be

4 totally perverse or impossible, it will not be permissible for

this Court to interfere with the same. Equally, if two views

are possible and one of the views is taken by the High Court

merely because the other view appears to be a possible view,

the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding of

acquittal.

14. The perusal of the testimony of PW-1 (Ganeshi Lal)

would reveal that he along with his wife and daughter were

sitting in the courtyard at the time of the incident. He states

that he heard the voice of deceased (Hira Lal Verma), who

was screaming for help. When he went there, he saw that the

accused was inflicting blows with a big sickle on the

deceased. He states that all the three members raised alarm

and rushed to the place of occurrence. In the meantime, the

respondent-accused had already left the place along with the

bloodstained stickle.

15. No doubt that the testimonies of these witnesses have

gone unshaken in the cross-examination, however, it is to be

noted that PW-1 was aged around 76 years at the time of

deposition and so he would be around 75 years when the

incident had occurred. In his testimony, he states that the

5 house of deceased-Hira Lal Verma is situated only at a

distance of 20 to 22 steps away. However, when we examine

the testimony of PW-2, who is the daughter of PW-1, it would

reveal that the distance between the house of the witnesses

and house of the deceased is around 80 meters which would

make it around 160 steps. According to PW-2, immediately

after hearing the cry of the deceased, all three of them

rushed to the place of occurrence. However, in the meantime,

the accused had managed to flee away towards the road

along with bloodstained stickle. In her cross-examination, it

is categorically admitted by PW-2 that when she reached the

courtyard of the deceased, the accused was not present

there. Insofar as the alleged motive of demand of money is

concerned, she specifically stated that the accused never

made any demand from the deceased either in her presence

or in the presence of her parents.

16. The next eye- witness is PW-4 (Hira Devi), wife of PW-1.

In her testimony, she states that after hearing the cries of

‘bachao bachao’, all three of them rushed to the house of

deceased-Hira Lal Verma. According to her, she reached the

house of deceased-Hira Lal Verma first followed by her

6 daughter and her husband. She admitted in her cross-

examination that her eye-sight is weak and she could see an

object at a distance of 10 to 12 steps only. She also

acknowledged that it was she who reached first in the

courtyard of deceased-Hira Lal Verma followed by her

daughter. Subsequently the other persons along with her

husband came on the spot.

17. Insofar as PW-3 (Shankar Lal Verma) is concerned, he

admittedly has not seen the incident and has been told by

PW-1 (Ganeshi Lal) about the same.

18. No doubt that all the three alleged witnesses are rustic

villagers and, therefore, their testimonies will have to be

taken with a pinch of salt.

19. If we examine the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4,

it can be seen that according to PW-2, she was the one who

has reached the spot first, and according to PW-4, it is she

who has reached the spot first thereafter followed by her

daughter (PW-2). Thereafter, after sometime, PW-1 arrived at

the scene along with other neighbours. It can further be seen

that according to PW-1, it is only PW-1 who has witnessed

the incident, whereas according to other witnesses i.e. PW-2

and PW-4, the accused had already left the place by the time

7 PW-1 and others reached the spot. In this background, it is

difficult to believe that PW-1 (Ganeshi Lal) has actually

witnessed the incident.

20. It is trite law that in a criminal case, if there is any

doubt, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused

person.

21. In that view of the matter, we find that the learned

Division Bench of the High Court could have granted the

benefit of doubt to the appellant on the basis of the

inconsistencies in the testimonies of all the three alleged eye-

witnesses.

22. No perversity or impossibility could be noticed in the

approach adopted by the learned Division Bench of the High

Court, warranting an interference in the appeal.

23. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

24. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

..................................J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 06, 2025.

8