Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1049-1050 of 2007
PETITIONER:
State of U.P
RESPONDENT:
Govind Das @ Gudda and Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1049-1050 OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.46-47 of 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are against the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court by which it directed
acquittal of the respondents. Before the High Court the
respondents had questioned correctness of the judgment
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, convicting
the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the ’IPC’) Each of the accused was sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default
stipulation. Respondent-Govind Das was sentenced to death
for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is to be
noted that there were two deceased persons; one was Loknath
and the other was Naval Kishore. Accused Sushila was
acquitted by the trial Court. Since accused Govind Das was
awarded death sentence, the matter was referred to the High
Court for confirmation of the sentence. The two accused
persons preferred appeals before the High Court and a
reference was made relating to death sentence awarded. By
the impugned order, the High Court found the accused
persons innocent and set aside the conviction and sentence
awarded.
3. Though many points were urged in support of the
appeals, we find it unnecessary to go into those because of the
casual and summary way of disposal of the two appeals and
the reference relating to the death sentence. The High Court
after analyzing the evidence and stand of the accused persons
and the prosecution in its judgment running into 23 pages (in
the paper book to this Court) allowed the appeals of the
accused persons with the following observations:
"We have carefully scrutinized the evidence on
record. In our opinion implicit evidence cannot
be placed on the testimonies of both eye
witnesses. They have implicated Smt. Sushila
in the crime. The involvement of Smt. Sushila
was to reconcile the conflict in direct and
medical evidence. Since the punctured wound
on the body of Lok Nath were of small
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
dimensions, therefore, weapon Barachhi and
pointed Sariya was introduced by the
witnesses. After the acquittal of Smt. Sushila
punctured wound remains unexplained.
Learned Sessions Judge has already held that
Ballam which is alleged to be recovered on the
pointing out of Jai Kishan is not weapon of
crime. There is no corroboration of any other
independent testimony or of medical evidence
or investigation.
In view of the discussion made above,
both the appeals are allowed. The conviction
and sentences awarded by the trial Court are
set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the
charges. The appellants are in jail. They shall
be released forthwith if not wanted in any
other case. The reference made by learned
Sessions Judge for the confirmation of death
sentence is rejected."
4. To say the least, the approach of the High Court is clearly
unsupportable. It did not bother to even analyse the evidence
and/or to refer to any finding recorded by the trial court as to
in what way the evidence was not acceptable. The mere fact
that the co-accused had been acquitted is not sufficient to
discard the prosecution version in its totality. It is not
understood as to what was meant by the High Court by stating
that there was no corroboration of ’investigation’. This is not
the way an appeal or reference for confirmation of death
sentence is to be dealt with. When the High Court was setting
aside the order of conviction the least that was required to be
done was analysis of the evidence to show as to how the
conclusions of the trial Court as regards acceptability of the
evidence of any witness was erroneous. That apparently has
not been done.
5. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High
Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. Since
the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to
explore the possibility of disposal of the appeals and the
reference made to it relating to confirmation of death sentence
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy
of this judgment. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the
aforesaid extent.