2009 (2) TMI 903 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Upholds HC Acquittal: Land Dispute, Witness Credibility Issues, and Self-Defense Claims Undermine Prosecution's Case.

State of U.P. Versus Banne and Ors.

The SC dismissed the appeal by the State of UP, upholding the HC's acquittal of the accused. The HC found a bona fide dispute over land possession and ... Reversal of acquittal passed by High Court - Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the ld trial Court? - Conviction of accused persons u/s 147, 307/149, u/s 323/149 I.P.C. and imprisonment for life u/s 302 r/w Sec. 149 of I.P.C. by the trial court - incident taken place between the accused and members of the complainant party over share in plot No. 165/2 measuring 1.88 decimals - Chhakkoo and his brother Panchu were original tenure holders of the said plot along with some other plots - members of the complainant party tried to forcibly dispossess them. HELD THAT:- The High Court came to the conclusion that PW.3 Sahadeo and PW.4 Narayan cannot be said to be totally independent witnesses as the defence had filed documentary evidence to show that Lalloo, the father of the accused persons had lodged an FIR against these witnesses for an offence u/s 308 IPC. These witnesses were, therefore, also somewhat inimical to the accused persons and their evidence cannot be given due weight especially with regard to the use of Lathi and Danda by the prosecution witnesses, particularly when such an important fact had not been stated by them in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the statements being contradictory to each other with regard to the use of Danda by the prosecution witness. The High Court arrived at the conclusion that the injuries of the accused persons have not been satisfactorily explained. This Court, in a recent judgment in Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2008 (7) TMI 951 - SUPREME COURT] considered earlier cases and laid down that the appellate court should, therefore, reverse an acquittal only when it has 'very substantial and compelling reasons'. Following are some of the circumstances in which perhaps this Court would be justified in interfering with the judgment of the High Court, but these are illustrative not exhaustive. i) The High court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; ii) The High court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record. iii) The entire approach of the High court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice; iv) The High court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case; v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court. vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal. When we apply these parameters laid down by a number of cases decided by this Court to the facts of this case, then conclusions become irresistible and no interference is warranted by this Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of UP being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Possession and ownership of the disputed land.2. Credibility of the prosecution witnesses.3. Injuries sustained by the accused and the complainant parties.4. Right to private defense.5. High Court's acquittal and the scope of Supreme Court's interference under Article 136.Detailed Analysis:1. Possession and Ownership of the Disputed Land:The case revolves around a violent incident on 13.11.1977 concerning the possession of plot No. 165/2 in Village Shivpurwa. The prosecution claimed that Moti and Gharroo were in possession of the southern portion of the plot, while the accused were in possession of the northern portion. The dispute over the share of the land had a history dating back to 1965, involving multiple legal proceedings, including suits under the U.P. Tenancy Act and the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The High Court found it difficult to conclude that the complainant party was in settled and peaceful possession of the 2/3 share of the plot on the date of the incident, indicating a bona fide dispute between the parties regarding their shares and extent of possession.2. Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses:The High Court questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses PW.3 Sahadeo and PW.4 Narayan, noting that they were not independent witnesses. The defense presented documentary evidence showing that Lalloo, the father of the accused, had lodged an FIR against these witnesses for an offense under Section 308 IPC. This prior enmity cast doubt on their impartiality. Additionally, the High Court noted inconsistencies in their statements regarding the use of lathi and danda by the prosecution witnesses, further undermining their credibility.3. Injuries Sustained by the Accused and the Complainant Parties:The trial court noted the injuries sustained by the accused but did not provide an explanation for these injuries. The High Court observed that the injuries on the accused were not superficial or minor, suggesting they were not self-inflicted. The absence of any explanation by the prosecution about the injuries received by the accused created serious doubt about the credibility of the entire prosecution version. This lack of explanation was a significant factor in the High Court's decision to acquit the accused.4. Right to Private Defense:The defense argued that the injuries caused to the complainant party were inflicted in the right of private defense. The High Court found weight in the defense argument, noting the bona fide dispute over possession and the lack of clarity on who the aggressors were. The injuries on both sides suggested a violent confrontation, and the High Court could not definitively determine whether the accused acted in private defense or not.5. High Court's Acquittal and the Scope of Supreme Court's Interference under Article 136:The Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 136, reiterating that it would only reverse an acquittal for 'very substantial and compelling reasons.' The Court cited several precedents, including Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Tulsiram Kanu v. The State, and others, to highlight that the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision was plausible and based on a careful re-examination of the evidence. The High Court's conclusions were not manifestly illegal or perverse, and the Supreme Court saw no compelling reason to interfere with the acquittal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of UP, finding no merit in interfering with the High Court's acquittal of the accused. The High Court's judgment was based on a thorough re-evaluation of the evidence, highlighting the lack of explanation for the injuries on the accused and questioning the credibility of prosecution witnesses. The bona fide dispute over possession and the possibility of private defense further supported the High Court's decision.