CHAND KHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

CHAND KHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

The High Court properly set aside the trial court's acquittal because the trial court's reasons for disbelieving the four eyewitnesses were perverse; the unanimous ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1,2,4 and 5 was convincing and corroborated by medical evidence and the FIR, motive was immaterial given reliable ocular evidence, failure to seize the alleged weapon did not destroy the prosecution case in the circumstances, and therefore the convictions (including under Section 302/149 IPC) and life sentences were upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Chand Khan; Appellant: Shabhu; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Section 379 Cr.p.c. / Judgment of the Supreme Court on Appeal From Allahabad High Court Order Dated 15.7.1991
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld
Legal Topics
Murder (ipc Section 302/149), Conviction on Appeal, Ocular Evidence and Eyewitness Reliability, First Information Report (fir) as Corroboration, Investigation and Seizure of Weapon, Proof of Motive, Section 114(g) Evidence Act Presumptions, Application of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Murder (ipc Section 302/149) Conviction on Appeal Ocular Evidence and Eyewitness Reliability First Information Report (fir) as Corroboration Investigation and Seizure of Weapon +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chand Khan

Appellant

Shabhu

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Under Section 379 Cr.p.c. / Judgment of the Supreme Court on Appeal From Allahabad High Court Order Dated 15.7.1991

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's order of acquittal
  2. 2 Whether the ocular testimony of four eyewitnesses was reliable enough to sustain conviction despite trial court's disbelief
  3. 3 Whether proof of motive was essential in face of convincing ocular evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court properly set aside the trial court's acquittal because the trial court's reasons for disbelieving the four eyewitnesses were perverse; the unanimous ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1,2,4 and 5 was convincing and corroborated by medical evidence and the FIR, motive was immaterial given reliable ocular evidence, failure to seize the alleged weapon did not destroy the prosecution case in the circumstances, and therefore the convictions (including under Section 302/149 IPC) and life sentences were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • The appellants, who are on bail, shall surrender to their bail bonds to serve the sentences