Crl.A. No. 1522 of 2007 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1522 OF 2007

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.