STATE OF U.P. versus GURU CHARAN & OTHERS

STATE OF U.P. versus GURU CHARAN & OTHERS

The High Court's re-examination of the entire evidence produced a plausible and possible view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt; given the limited scope for interference under Article 136 and absence of substantial and compelling reasons to discard the High...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: State of U.P.; Respondent / Accused: Guru Charan; Respondent / Accused: Sunil; Respondent / Accused: Pramod; Respondent / Accused: Brahma Pal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Under Article 136 Against High Court Acquittal; Hearing and Final Judgment by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Acquittal, Scope of Interference Under Article 136, Murder (ipc Section 302 Read With 34), Attempt to Murder/murderous Assault (ipc Section 307 Read With 34), Evidence Evaluation, Death Penalty Confirmation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Appeal Against Acquittal Scope of Interference Under Article 136 Murder (ipc Section 302 Read With 34) Attempt to Murder/murderous Assault (ipc Section 307 Read With 34) Evidence Evaluation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U.P.

Appellant

Guru Charan

Respondent / Accused

Sunil

Respondent / Accused

Pramod

Respondent / Accused

Brahma Pal

Respondent / Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Under Article 136 Against High Court Acquittal; Hearing and Final Judgment by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's acquittal of the respondents should be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused for the murders of Ramesh Narain and Jitendra (Guddu) and the murderous assault on PW2
  3. 3 Whether the scope of interference by this Court in appeals against acquittal permits reversal of the High Court's findings

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's re-examination of the entire evidence produced a plausible and possible view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt; given the limited scope for interference under Article 136 and absence of substantial and compelling reasons to discard the High Court's findings, this Court will not interfere with the acquittal; therefore the appeals by the State are dismissed and the High Court judgment acquitting the respondents is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • High Court judgment dated 3.7.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.1795/99 and Criminal Appeal No.2018/99 acquitting the respondents and rejection of Reference No.8 of 1999 is upheld.