/2023 INSC 0280/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2023
SITA RAM                 …APPELLANT
versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH       ...RESPONDENT
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
ABHAY S. OKA, J .
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The   appellant   is   the   original   accused   no.9.     The
appellant   and   the   accused   no.10   –   Ram   Bachan,   were
convicted   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short,  ‘IPC’).   Accused nos.  1 to  8 were  convicted for  the
offence   punishable   under   Section   325   read   with   Section
149   of   IPC.     The   appellant   and   the   accused   no.10   were
sentenced   to   undergo   life   imprisonment.     The   accused
Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 2023
Page  1  of  8

no.10 died  during  the  pendency  of  the  appeal  before  the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
2. The   incident   is   of   17 th
  August   1984.     According   to
the   prosecution’s   case,   PW­1   Uday   Raj   Maurya,   PW­2
Ram   Aadhar   (father   of   PW­1)   and   Karam   Hussain
(deceased) were sitting near the doorsteps of the house of
PW­1   and   PW­2.     Their   discussion   was   about   irrigating
the fields.  According to the prosecution’s case, there was
previous   enmity   between   PW­1   and   PW­2   on   the   one
hand and the accused persons on the other.  There was a
case filed against the family of the accused no.1 in which
PW­2 was a witness.  According to the prosecution’s case,
a   decree   was   passed   in   favour   of   PW­1   and   PW­2   and
against   accused   no.7   Tufani.     Moreover,   PW­2   had   filed
the   case   against   accused   no.3   and   accused  no.4.    While
PW­1,  PW­2  and  the  deceased  were  discussing   the  issue
of irrigating their  fields, the accused persons came there
carrying   bricks   and   bamboo   sticks.     The   appellant   was
carrying   a   spade.     At   that   time,   accused   nos.4   and   6
shouted   that   PW­1,   PW­2   and   the   deceased   should   be
killed   so   that   the   case   gets   finished.     On   hearing   this,
PW­1,   PW­2   and   the   deceased   ran   towards   the   northern
side of the house of PW­1.   The accused persons chased
and   surrounded   them.     The   appellant   attacked   the
deceased   on   his   head   with   the   blunt   edge   of   the   spade.
Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 2023
Page  2  of  8

He also attacked PW­2 by using the same weapon.   After
the deceased fell down, the accused continued to assault
the   said   three   persons   with   bamboo   sticks.     Karam
Hussain,   the   deceased,   succumbed   to   the   injuries
sustained   due  to   the   assault  made  by   the   appellant  and
the   accused   no.10.   The   prosecution   examined   eight
witnesses,   out   of   which,   PW­1   and   PW­2   were   the   eye­
witnesses.   The Sessions Court believed the testimony of
PW­1 and PW­2 and convicted the accused.  In the appeal
before the High Court, the conviction of the appellant was
confirmed.  However,  accused  nos.1  and  2,  who   were  the
only other surviving accused, were acquitted.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
urged   that   both   PW­1   and   PW­2   admitted   in   the   cross­
examination   that   they   had   not   seen   which   accused
assaulted   the   deceased.     Moreover,   three   eyewitnesses
who   were   present   at   the   time   of   the   incident   were   not
examined.  He, therefore, submitted that the conviction of
the appellant cannot be sustained.
4. The   learned   senior   counsel   representing   the
respondent – State of Uttar Pradesh pointed out that both
PW­1   and   PW­2   have   clearly   stated   that   the   appellant
Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 2023
Page  3  of  8

assaulted   the   deceased   on   his   head   with   the   blunt   edge
of   the   spade.     He   submitted   that   the   medical   evidence
supports   the   version   of   PW­1   and   PW­2   as   far   as   the
assault   by   the   appellant   on   the   deceased   is   concerned.
He   submitted   that   both   the   Courts   have   believed   the
testimony of PW­1 and PW­2 as far as the assault on the
deceased   is   concerned   and   that   there   was   no   perversity
in   the   findings   recorded   by   the   Sessions   Court   and   the
High  Court.   He submitted that  no interference  be made
with the conviction of the appellant. 
OUR VIEW
5. We   have   perused   the   evidence   of   PW­1   and   PW­2.
We   may   note   here   that   the   High   Court   has   disbelieved
their  versions to the extent to which they  deposed about
the injuries received by them in the incident at the hands
of the accused.  In fact, there is a specific finding that the
version   of   PW­1   and   PW­2   about   the   assault   on   them
does not inspire confidence.
6. It   is   true   that   both   PW­1   and   PW­2,   in   their
examination­in­chief,   have   stated   that   the   appellant
assaulted   the   deceased   on   his   head   with   the   blunt   edge
of   the   spade.     In   the   examination­in­chief,   PW­1   stated
that his father PW­2 fell on the ground due to the injuries
Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 2023
Page  4  of  8

sustained   by   him   as   a   result   of   the   assault   made   by
bamboo   sticks.     Thereafter,   the   deceased   tried   to   run
away when he was caught by one of the accused persons
and   thereafter,   the   appellant   assaulted   the   deceased.
PW­1,   in   paragraph   19   of   his   cross­examination,   stated
that   he   and   PW­2   fell   down   as   a   result   of   the   attack   by
the   accused   persons,   and   therefore,   he   had   not   seen
which   accused   assaulted   them   with   which   weapon.     He
admitted   that   he   is   unable   to   tell   which   accused
assaulted him.  In the examination­in­chief, PW­1 did not
state   that   he   also   fell   down   after   he   and   his   father   were
attacked.     The   version   of   his   father   PW­2   is   that   after
both   of   them   fell   down,   there   was   an   assault   on   the
deceased.
7. Now,   coming   to   the   testimony   of   PW­2,   in   his
examination­in­chief,   he   stated   that   after   two   accused
persons   shouted   that   PW­1,   PW­2   and   the   deceased
should be killed, he started running away.  He stated that
he fell down due to an assault made by the accused, and
thereafter, PW­1 fell down.  He stated that thereafter, the
appellant assaulted the deceased.  In paragraph 10 of the
cross­examination of PW­2, he stated that he and his son
PW­1   were   beaten   at   the   same   time.     However,   he
accepted that he had not seen who had assaulted whom.
The   version   of   PW­1   and   PW­2   in   the   cross­examination
Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 2023
Page  5  of  8

creates   serious   doubt   as   to   whether   they   had   seen   any
particular accused assaulting the deceased.  
8. There   is   another   important   aspect   of   the   matter.
PW­1,   in   his   examination­in­chief,   stated   that   when   he,
PW­2   and   the   deceased   were   being   assaulted,   after
hearing   their   shouts,   Munif,   Murtaza   and   Iltaf   rushed
there.     They   stopped   near   the   house   of   one   Funnu   and
shouted   at   the   accused   to   leave   PW­1,   PW­2   and   the
deceased.     However,   the   accused   continued   to   assault
them.     Even   PW­2   stated   that   the   witnesses,   Munif,
Murtaza   and   Iltaf   came   to   the   spot   where   he   was   being
assaulted   along   with   other   villagers.     It   must   also   be
noted   here   that   in   paragraph   20   of   the   cross­
examination,   PW­1   stated   that   many   villagers   have   seen
the   incident,   including   the   witness   Munif.     PW­6   Shiv
Narayan   Singh,   who   had   investigated   the   offence,   stated
in   his   examination­in­chief   that   he   had   recorded   the
statements   of   witnesses   Munif,   Iltaf   and   Murtaza.
However, he has not stated any reason for not examining
these   three   independent   eyewitnesses.     In   fact,   in
paragraph 15 of the cross­examination of PW­2, he stated
that witness Munif had come to the Court on the very day
on which his evidence was recorded, but he had become
hostile.
Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 2023
Page  6  of  8

9. As   observed   earlier,   there   is   serious   doubt   whether
PW­1 and PW­2 had really seen the appellant assaulting
the deceased with the blunt edge of the spade.  There was
a   prior   enmity   between   the   two   eyewitnesses   and   the
accused.     Moreover,   at   least   three   independent
eyewitnesses   were   available   whose   statements   under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short,   ‘Cr.P.C.’)   were   admittedly   recorded.     One   of   them
(Munif)   admittedly   attended   the   Court   but   was   not
examined.     It   is   true   that   when   there   are   a   number   of
eyewitnesses,   the   prosecution’s   case   cannot   be
disbelieved   on   the   ground   that   few   of   the   eyewitnesses
were   not   examined,   especially   when   the   version   of   the
eyewitnesses   examined   before   the   Court,   inspires
confidence.  In the present case, version of PW­1 and PW­
2 does not inspire confidence.   That is how the failure of
the   prosecution   to   examine   three   independent
eyewitnesses   whose   statements   were   recorded,   becomes
very   relevant.     Moreover,   one   of   the   three   witnesses
attended   the   Court   but   was   not   examined.     Considering
the   fact   that   the   testimony   of   PW­1   and   PW­2   who   were
allegedly   injured   witnesses,   cannot   be   believed,   adverse
inference   will   have   to   be   drawn   on   account   of   the
prosecution’s failure to examine the three eyewitnesses.  
Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 2023
Page  7  of  8

10. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to
prove   the   guilt   of   the   appellant   beyond   a   reasonable
doubt.    Hence, the conviction of the  appellant  under  the
impugned   judgment   and   orders   is   set   aside,   and   the
appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
The   order   dated  8 th
  February   2021  passed  by   this   Court
records   that   the   appellant   has   surrendered.     We,
therefore, direct that the  appellant  shall be forthwith  set
at   liberty   unless   he   is   required   in   connection   with   any
other case.  The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
….……………J.
          (Abhay S. Oka)
1.
.………………J.
          (Pankaj Mithal)
New Delhi;
April 12, 2023.   
Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 2023
Page  8  of  8