State of Uttar Pradesh vs Krishna Gopal
(1988) 3 SCC 295
Facts of the Case:
The respondents, Krishna Gopal and Vijai, were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Harish, the son of Mihilal. The incident occurred on 31st January 1981 in Mirganj, Bareilly, where the respondents attacked Harish with knives, causing fatal injuries. Harish succumbed to his injuries at the district hospital later that day.
The prosecution primarily relied on eye-witness testimony (Omkar - PW 1 and Khiali Ram - PW 2) and the dying declaration made by Harish, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer (Ex. Ka. 7). The defence contested the authenticity of the dying declaration, arguing that the nature of the injuries sustained by Harish would have rendered him unconscious and incapable of making such a statement. Additionally, the defence questioned the credibility of the eye-witnesses, citing potential biases and discrepancies in their testimony.
The Sessions Court convicted the respondents and sentenced them to life imprisonment. However, the High Court, upon appeal, acquitted the respondents after reconsidering the evidence, particularly questioning the credibility of the dying declaration and the eye-witnesses' accounts.
The State filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the acquittal and arguing that the High Court had erred in its evaluation of the evidence.
Sections Involved:
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Murder
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
• Article 136 of the Constitution of India - Special Leave Petition (Appeal to the Supreme Court)
Issues:
1. Powers of the Appellate Court:
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the conviction and acquitting the respondents based on speculative medical opinions, despite the strong evidence presented by the prosecution.
2. Credibility of Eye-Witnesses and Dying Declaration:
Whether the dying declaration of Harish and the testimony of the eye-witnesses should have been accepted, despite the defence’ s argument that the deceased could not have been conscious to make such statements.
3. Appropriateness of the High Court's Acquittal:
Whether the High Court's approach in giving primacy to hypothetical medical evidence over the direct testimony of eye-witnesses led to an unjust acquittal.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. The Court made the following key observations:
1. Scope of Appellate Powers:
The Court emphasized that the powers of an appellate court in appeals against acquittal are not significantly different from those in appeals against conviction. While the approach and perspective may differ, the content of the power remains the same. The Court reiterated that there is no immunity for an erroneous order from rigorous appellate scrutiny. In this case, the High Court's acquittal was based on assumptive reasoning, which was found to be flawed.
2. Credibility of Eye-Witnesses and Dying Declaration:
The Court observed that the eye-witnesses' accounts should be evaluated independently, without being prejudged in favor of medical opinions. The dying declaration was a crucial piece of evidence, and while medical opinions could suggest alternative scenarios, they should not overshadow direct, credible eyewitness testimony. The Court highlighted the interdependence of evidence in establishing the truth of the case.
3. Review of High Court's Judgment:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had placed undue reliance on hypothetical medical evidence to discount the dying declaration and eye-witness testimonies. This led to a serious error of assumption, which vitiated the findings of the High Court.
4. Remittance for Fresh Consideration:
The Supreme Court directed that the appeal be remitted back to the High Court for a fresh assessment of the evidence, ensuring that all relevant material, including the dying declaration and eye-witness accounts, be given proper weight
-GAYATRI KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY
Comments