Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Gopal Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 October, 2017
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1802-1803 OF 2017
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) Nos.1367-1368 of 2016]
RAM GOPAL YADAV ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
AND ANR. ETC. ...RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The complainant challenges the acquittal of the respondents accused of the offences under Section 302/34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as made by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in reversal of the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court.
3. We have perused the order of the High Court under challenge and considered Signature Not Verified the relevant part of the evidence tendered Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA by the witnesses examined in the case. We Date: 2017.10.24 18:13:57 IST Reason:
2
have also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. P.W.5 (Shyamlal) who is the sole eye-witness has been found by the High Court to be unworthy of credit in view of serious inconsistencies in his evidence. We cannot find any fault with the aforesaid conclusion of the High Court.
5. Insofar as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, according to the P.W.4 (Vinayaka Yadav), the accused No.1 – Goverdhan Yadav had threatened P.W.4 and her husband (deceased) to the effect that he will kill them if they had got married. P.W. 17 (Francis Khalko) and P.W. 22 (Nand Kishore Yadav) have deposed that they have seen the respondents accused near the place of occurrence. The aforesaid statements of P.W. 17 and P.W. 22 were made after about six months from the date of the incident. 3
6. If in the aforesaid facts the High Court had taken the view that the circumstances apart from creating suspicion against the respondents accused do not conclusively prove the guilt, we cannot find fault with the said conclusion of the High Court. The view taken by the High Court is a possible view with which we should not be interfering in an appeal against an order of acquittal.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals by the complainant are dismissed and the order of the High Court is affirmed.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(NAVIN SINHA)
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 23, 2017
4
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S).
1367-1368/2016
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02-07-2015 IN CRLA NO. 403/2011 AND CRLA NO. 523/2011 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR) RAM GOPAL YADAV PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) Date : 23-10-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Iqbal Ashraf Rahmani, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Ameet Deshpande, Adv.
Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]