2010 INSC 0757
State of U.P
v.
Itwari & Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. PRASAD
State of U.P v. Itwari & Others
Criminal Appeal No. 1037 Of 2003 | 11-08-2010

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties very carefully. In this matter the Trial Court has
recorded a conviction against the respondents for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC in the year of 1980 with respect to an incident of 18th March, 1979. The High
Court in appeal in its judgment dated 29th January 2003 reversed the finding of the Trial Court and
acquitted the accused. The State of U.P. is before us today after the grant of the special leave.

2. Mr. Pramod Swarup, the learned senior counsel has very vehemently argued that the judgment of
the High Court was wrong in law and fact and the finding that there was no light at the place of the
incident by which the witnesses could identify the accused was not based on the evidence as a light
had been indicated in the site plan prepared contemporaneously. He has also pointed out that s the
motive, was a dispute between the deceased and some of the accused with respect to a sum of Rs.40/-,
had been proved and this too was a corroborating circumstance. He has accordingly submitted that in
the light of the categorical statements of the eye witnesses that the accused had caused the injury to
the deceased and that too virtually in the middle of the village, the High court judgment was
erroneous and needed to be reversed.

3. On the contrary Mr. Ratnakar Das, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted
that the only role attributed to accused Shankar and Chunnu was that they had caught hold of the
deceased so as to facilitate the attack by the other accused but even this fact had not been given by the
witnesses in their police statements and their involvement was therefore in any case not made out.

4. We also notice that on the date of the incident Itwari and Chunnu were apparently juvenile. We also
see from the findings of the High Court that the possibility that the accused may not have been
properly identified as the presence of a light at the spot was uncertain, as several of the witnesses had
not referred to the presence of a light. The High Court was also deeply influenced by the fact that
there were several cases pending against Babu Lal deceased and that he could have been murdered by
some unknown persons.

5. Mr. Pramod Swarup has further pointed out that therewere a large number of injuries on the person
of thedeceased. Admittedly that is the position but the questionis as to who had caused those injuries.

1  SpotLaw
6. We are of theopinion that in the light of the findings of fact recordedby the High Court which
cannot be said to be so palpablyerroneous as to call for our intervention, we dismiss theappeal.

2  SpotLaw