STATE OF U.P. versus KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.

STATE OF U.P. versus KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.

Trustworthy eye-witness testimony, including that of a rustic and a child witness, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt FIR, is sufficient to sustain conviction for murder under Section 302/34 IPC even in the presence of minor discrepancies. The High Court erred in its approach to evidence appreciation and in acquitting the accused.

Parties
Appellant: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondents: Krishna Master & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court acquittal set aside; conviction and sentencing by Trial Court restored
Legal Topics
Homicide, Evidence, Sentencing, Appreciation of Witness Evidence
Criminal Law Homicide Evidence Sentencing Appreciation of Witness Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Uttar Pradesh

Appellant

Krishna Master & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents were guilty of committing six murders under Section 302/34 IPC
  2. 2 Appreciation of rustic and child witness testimony
  3. 3 Sufficiency of evidence for conviction despite acquittal by High Court

Ratio Decidendi

Trustworthy eye-witness testimony, including that of a rustic and a child witness, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt FIR, is sufficient to sustain conviction for murder under Section 302/34 IPC even in the presence of minor discrepancies. The High Court erred in its approach to evidence appreciation and in acquitting the accused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court acquittal set aside; conviction and sentencing by Trial Court restored

Orders

  • Each respondent convicted under Section 302/34 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for life and fined Rs.25,000 each; in default, rigorous imprisonment for two years
  • Out of the fines paid, Rs.50,000 to be paid to PW2 Madan Lal as compensation under Section 357 CrPC