SURENDRA PURI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(SC)-2016-3-123
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 02,2016

SURENDRA PURI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The correctness of the concurrent findings recorded in the impugned judgment dated 5.01.2010 on the charge against the appellant with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) is under challenge in this criminal appeal, urging various legal contentions. The machinery of the criminal law was set into motion by filing of a First Information Report (Case Crime No. 412) by one Ramesh Chandra, informant/brother of the deceased, on 11.08.1980 registered with the Police Station, Jwalapur, District Saharanpur alleging that on 11.08.1980 in the evening at about 5.30 p.m., he along with his grandfather, Chauhal Singh, and his sister (since deceased) were in the fields. According to him, the deceased had gone to the adjoining corn field for cutting grass, when her cries 'to leave her alone' were heard. On hearing it, when the informant and his grandfather reached the spot they saw that both the accused persons were holding the deceased. The accused/appellant hit the neck of the deceased with Daraanti. On seeing the informant and his grandfather approaching the spot, both the accused persons ran away.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant questioned the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded on the charge against the accused/appellant on various grounds, inter alia, contended that the concurrent findings on the charge is erroneous for non -examination of the witness, namely, Chauhal Singh, grandfather of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of PW -1 and PW -2, though they are eye -witnesses, do not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the concurrent findings of fact is erroneous in law and liable to be set aside. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below have committed an error in law in not examining the case in proper perspective after proper appreciation and re -appreciation of evidence on record. After hearing the aforesaid legal submissions, we have very carefully examined the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Division Bench of the High Court has examined the prosecution and the defence case thoroughly after adverting to the rival legal contentions urged therein and after elaborately referring to the prosecution evidence has rightly arrived at the conclusion of guilt on the charge against the appellant recorded by the trial court based on the testimony of eyewitness, namely, PW -1. PW -2 is the person who had seen both the accused persons running away from the place of the occurrence after committing the offence. At paragraph No. 22 in the impugned judgment, the appellate court has elaborately adverted to the evidence of PW -1, informant, who is the eyewitness of the incident. He has very vividly narrated the occurrence stating that both the accused were holding his sister. Surendra Puri hit the neck of the deceased with Daraanti. After his cross -examination, there is nothing to doubt his testimony. The finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in this regard is correct. Further, referring to the PW -2, who has corroborated the evidence of PW -1, in his evidence, has categorically stated that he saw both the accused running away from the spot and further stated that, at that time, Surendra had Daraanti in his hand. In the cross -examination, nothing is elicited to doubt the veracity of his statement or with regard to his presence at the spot. More so, the FIR was lodged on the same day and the appellate court has examined the case of the appellant from various point of view, namely, that the another accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC but he is convicted under Section 354 of the IPC. The examination of the father of the deceased, PW -3, has also been considered, who, in his evidence, has stated that Shiv Charan tried to molest the deceased on an earlier occasion as well. At that time, PW -3 reached the spot and had a scuffle with the accused -Shiv Charan. Shiv Charan threatened to shoot him. The said evidence is corroborated by the brother of the deceased, PW -1. The High Court after applying its mind has consciously re -appreciated the evidence on record and concurred with the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It has after examining the demeanour of the witnesses found that the trial court has rightly recorded the finding of guilt on the charge against the accused/appellant. In our considered opinion, the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has rightly re -appreciated the evidence on record, examined the finding of fact of guilt on the charge and after giving elaborate reasons has concurred with the finding of guilt on the charge against the accused/appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant made her best efforts to show us that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the High Court is erroneous in law. We are not impressed with the submissions made at the Bar to annul the concurrent findings of fact. We are of the view that the appellate court has passed a well considered judgment after considering all the legal contentions urged before it. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the High Court is based on proper re -appreciation of evidence on record, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. The criminal miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.