Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Manjeet Singh on 12 October, 2023
Bench: M.M. Sundresh, Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2013
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MANJEET SINGH Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. This present appeal has been preferred by the State aggrieved over the order of acquittal rendered by the High Court for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Against the accused persons, the Trial Court rendered an order of acquittal except to the Respondent in this appeal placing reliance upon the evidence of the child witness – PW2. The appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal was dismissed, while the appeal filed by the Respondent resulted in an order of acquittal on the premise that a conviction cannot be rendered merely based upon the evidence of PW2 when there is a distinct possibility of tutoring, and the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 having been registered after four months of the occurrence.
Signature Not Verified The aforesaid judgment, rendered by theDigitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated Date: 2023.10.19 17:10:04 IST Reason: 16.04.2010, is sought to be overturned in the present appeal. 1
3. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that due explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer. PW-2 was initially injured and thereafter his whereabouts were not known. The High Court has disbelieved his evidence merely based upon the surmises and conjectures. The view expressed by the Trial Court, being a plausible one, ought not to have been disturbed.
4. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The High Court has given its cogent reasoning for coming to its conclusion. The fact that the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded after four months was not in dispute. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer was rightly rejected by the High Court. The statements of other witnesses were disbelieved by both the Courts and, therefore, their testimonies cannot be pressed into service even insofar as the Respondent is concerned.
5. Under these circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that it is unsafe to place reliance upon the evidence of PW-2, especially when he was staying with his uncle, who also gave his statement earlier, which was disbelieved by the Court. The fact that the said person was very much present during examination, was also taken note of.
6. In such view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned.
2
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
......................J. (M.M. SUNDRESH) ......................J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) New Delhi;
12th October, 2023.
3
ITEM NO.112 COURT NO.15 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).393/2013
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MANJEET SINGH Respondent(s)
Date : 12-10-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Kuber Boddh, Adv.
Mr. Kausabh Anshuraj, Adv.
Mr. Harpreet Bawa, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Kartikey, Adv.
Ms. Tejaswin Suri, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kamal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In terms of the signed order, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RAVI ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)
4