State of U.P. v. Jagram & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2008-02-12
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the impugned acquittal by the Allahabad High Court is set aside, convictions of the respondents recorded by the Trial Court are restored; bail bonds of respondents on bail are cancelled; they are directed to be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of sentence, with a compliance report to be sent within one month.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of; conviction restored; acquittal set aside; custodial directions issued; compliance report to be filed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondents

Jagram and others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.R. Singh
• T.N. Singh
• Anil Kumar Jha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sushil Kumar Jain
• Puneet Jain
• Christi Jain
• H.D. Thanvi
• F Pratibha Jain
• Rameshwar Prasad Goyal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision arises from Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2008, challenging a High Court acquittal of four persons convicted by a trial court under IPC sections 302 and 324 read with section 34. The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, by its judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 486/1980 (assailed here), had allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The State contends that the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, arguing that the eyewitness testimonies were corroborated by medical evidence and the occurrence occurred in the house in the dead of night; hence the trial court’s conviction was justified. The matter references an earlier Supreme Court decision in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2004, decided on 22 March 2006, where the Court held that the eyewitness accounts, corroborated by medical evidence, could not be rejected merely because witnesses were family members or related to the deceased. The present Court, by its judgment, reiterates that the High Court’s acquittal suffers from perversity and reverses it, restoring the trial court’s convictions and directing custodial implementation. The decision reflects the consistent approach of evaluating eyewitness testimony in light of medical corroboration and the surrounding circumstances of the house-entry crime. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with directions for custody and compliance reporting.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

State contends that the Allahabad High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s conviction, misreading the evidence, and that the eyewitnesses’ testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, supports the conviction. The earlier Supreme Court decision in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2004 (decided 22.03.2006) reinforces the view that such testimony is credible and legally admissible, despite familial relations to the deceased.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue that the High Court’s acquittal was proper, grounded on inconsistencies and lack of reliable corroboration; the medical evidence does not sufficiently support the prosecution’s version and the witnesses’ admissions undermine the case.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2004	Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2004; decided 22.03.2006	Positive	The Supreme Court in the 2006 decision allowed the complainant’s appeal, holding that eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence supported the prosecution, forming the basis for upholding convictions that the High Court had reversed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

~ [2008] 2 S.C.R. 721 / A ........ ## STATE OF U.P. _v._ JAGRAM & ORS. > (Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2008) FEBRUARY 12, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] ~ _Penal Code, 1860_ - _ss. 302 and 324 r/w_ s. _34- conviction by trial Court_ - _Acquittal by High Court_ - _Order of High Court set aside by Supreme Court in an appeal filed by the_ c _complainant- On appeal by State, held: In view of the decision of Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the complainant, matter disposed of_ _Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2004 decided by Supreme Court on 22.3.2006_ - relied on. D CRlMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. Lucknow E in Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 1980. > S.R. Singh, T.N. Singh and Anil Kumar Jha for the Appellant. ... ~ Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, H.D. Thanvi, F Pratibha Jain and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by """ DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. _Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 passed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.486/1990. Four persons had _filed_ the aforesaid appeal questioning their conviction for offences 721 G H I ~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS 722 [2008] 2 S.C.R. ....... A punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Though the Trial Court had recorded a conviction, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. It was noted that there were several discrepancies in the evidence of B[the ][witnesses ][and the prosecution version did not inspire ] confidence. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court is not correct and the analysis of evidence suffers from various infirmities. ;..._ ~ -. c 4. At this juncture, it needs to be noted that the complainant Usman Ali had filed Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2004 before this Court questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment in the present appeal. This Court by its judgment date 22.3.2006 D[allowed the appeal with the following observations: ] E F G H "The evidence of these three eyewitnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. The High Court has committed an error of record in observing that the injuries found on these witnesses are not consistent with the prosecution case rather from the injuries noted above, it would be clear that the prosecution case is supported by medical evidence. Further their evidence could not have been thrown out merely because they were family members rather they were most competent persons being the inmates of the house especially when the occurrence had taken place in the house itself in the dead of night. This being the position, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. In our view, the Trial Court was quite justified in placing reliance upon the evidence of these three eyewitnesses and the High Court has committed error in rejecting the same. Lastly, the High Court has committed an error in recording acquittal also on the ground that the names of the recording acquittal also on the ground that the names of the accused persons were not mentioned in the inquest ~ "- ~ STATE OF U.P. _v._ JAGRAM & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 723 report. In our view, this hardly could be a ground to acquit A the accused persons. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the Trial Court was quite justified in . convicting the respondents and the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court suffers from the vice of perversity, as such the same is liable to be set aside. B The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, impugned order of acquittal rendered by the High Court is set aside and convictions of the respondent recorded by the Trial Court are restored: Bail bonds of respondents, who are on bail, are cancelled and they are directed to be taken into C custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence for which compliance report must be sent to this Court within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order "by the Trial Court." 5. In this view of the matter, nothing further survives to be D done in the present appeal. However, had the parties brought to the notice of the Bench hearing Criminal Appeal No. 233/ 2004 about pendency of the present appeal, it could have been taken up sim~ltaneously. Apparently, that was not done. E 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.