{"id":166625,"date":"2004-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004"},"modified":"2017-02-10T06:26:57","modified_gmt":"2017-02-10T00:56:57","slug":"state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, S.B. Sinha.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  114 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of U.P.\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNawab Singh (Dead) & Ors.\t\t\t \t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/02\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nY.K. Sabharwal & S.B. Sinha.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J:\n<\/p>\n
 \tA judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court of
\nJudicature at Allahabad is in question in this appeal at the
\ninstance of the State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe three respondents herein were charged for
\ncommission of an offence under Section 302\/34 of the Indian
\nPenal Code for causing death of one Sri Ram on 10\/11.6.1978
\nat about 2.00 a.m.<\/p>\n
BACKGROUND FACT:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe prosecution case, as appearing from the First
\nInformation Report, is that the respondents together with
\none Ram Prakash (who is absconding) came to the house of
\ndeceased about 2.00 a.m. in the night.  The house of the
\ndeceased was a small one with a very small courtyard.  At
\nthe time of occurrence, there were five inmates in the
\nhouse.  Amrit Lal then aged about 12 years, son of the
\ndeceased and the first informant Ram Ratan aged 20 years,
\nbrother-in-law of the deceased were sleeping on one cot.
\nKm. Kanth Shri, the unmarried sister of the deceased was
\nsleeping on another cot.  Renuka Devi, wife of the deceased
\ntogether with her 15 day’s old baby was sleeping on the
\nthird cot in the open courtyard of the house.  The deceased
\nwas sleeping on another cot in the courtyard under a shed
\n(chhappar) near the doors of the room and the kitchen.  The
\nhouse of Sri Ram had no shutter opening on the side of the
\nlane.  An opening in the wall existed for coming out of the
\nhouse in the lane.  As Renuka Devi gave birth to a child
\nonly a few days back, a lantern was burning.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe accused persons at 2.00 a.m. on 10.6.1978
\ntrespassed into the house.  Ram Prakash and Natthu were said
\nto have been armed with pistols whereas Nawab and Peshkar
\nwere said to have been armed with lathis.  The parties were
\nsaid to be in inimical terms.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is contended that the accused persons were history
\nsheeters.  They were involved in two murder cases.  The
\ndeceased Sri Ram was a witness in one of them.  He had
\nconstantly been pressurized not to depose in that case by
\nthe accused persons.  Ram Prakash together with the other
\naccused persons upon entering the courtyard of the house
\ngave a threat to the deceased that he would be killed if he
\ndeposed in the case of murder of Kedar.  The deceased is
\nsaid to be awaken at that time and allegedly replied that he
\nwould make the same statement in the court which he had made
\nbefore the investigating officer.  Hearing the conversation,
\nthe other inmates of the house awoke.  Ram Prakash is said
\nto have fired his pistol at Sri Ram causing an abrasion on
\nthe left side back middle whereafter respondent No. 2 Natthu
\nfired a pistol shot at Sri Ram which hit the deceased on the
\nleft side of the abdomen 21 cm. below the left nipple.  As a
\nresult of the injuries suffered thereby Sri Ram is said to
\nhave died.  Renuka Devi and Ram Ratan cried out for help
\nwhereupon they were also threatened.  The entire incident
\ntook about 2-3 minutes whereafter the accused persons left
\nthe place of occurrence.  The accused persons are said to
\nhave thereafter gone near the tubewell of the Het Ram
\nPradhan where he and his brothers Har Nagar and Pati Ram
\nwere sleeping on the roof of the kothri of the tubewell
\nwhere an electric bulb of 250 watt was burning.  Hearing the
\nsound of firing, the said persons were also said to have
\nbeen seen by them.  It is alleged that Ram Prakash and
\nNatthu shouted at Pradhan Het Ram stating that they had
\nkilled Sri Ram and if he dared to depose in the case of
\nmurder of Kedar, he would also be put to death in the same
\nmanner.  Fearing assault at the hands of the accused and as
\nthey, being not armed, did not come down from the rooftop.
\nAt about 5.00 a.m., however, they are said to have gone near
\nthe village ‘abadi’ which is situated at about one and a
\nhalf furlongs.  They came to the place of occurrence and
\nfound the dead body of Sri Ram lying on the cot under the
\nChhapper.  Ram Ratan prepared a written report which was
\nwritten by one Har Nagar Singh whereafter the duo left the
\nvillage on bicycle at 5.30 a.m.  The police station is said
\nto be at a distance of 2 and = miles from the village.
\nWhile Har Nagar Singh awaited outside the police station,
\nRam Ratan took the written report to the police station and
\na formal First Information Report was lodged on the basis
\nthereof.  Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet
\nwas submitted.  Whereas Nawab Singh could be arrested in the
\nevening of 11.6.1978, the other accused persons were not
\nfound in the village.  As noticed hereinbefore, Ram Prakash
\ncould not be arrested so far.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn support of the prosecution case, nine witnesses were
\nexamined out of whom PW 1 Renuka Devi, PW 3 Ram Ratan and PW
\n5 Amril Lal were eye witnesses.  The prosecution also
\nexamined Har Nagar Singh (PW 4) to show that the accused
\npersons Natthu, his father Nawab Singh and Peshkar belonged
\nto the party of the accused Ram Prakash who was charged for
\nalleged commission of murder of Kedar.\n<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned Sessions Judge having regard to the
\nstatements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure came to the conclusion that it stands
\naccepted that there had been ‘party feelings’ in the
\nvillage.  The learned Sessions Judge, placing reliance upon
\nthe eye witnesses, the medical evidence as also existence of
\nmotive on the part of the respondents to commit the crime,
\ncame to the conclusion that they along with Ram Prakash had
\na common intention to cause the murder of Sri Ram.  Having
\nregard to the fact that the death of the deceased was caused
\nby Natthu, he was found guilty of commission of the offence
\npunishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
\nwhereas the others were found guilty of the offence under
\nSection 302\/34 of the Indian Penal Code.  Upon hearing the
\naccused persons on the question of sentence in terms of
\nSection 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
\nrespondents were awarded sentence of life imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn arriving at the aforementioned findings, the learned
\nSessions Judge relied upon the evidence of the eye
\nwitnesses.  The learned Sessions Judge rejected the
\nsubmissions of the respondents to the effect that Ram Ratan
\nwas not an eye witness inter alia on the ground that had he
\nnot been present it would not have been possible to come to
\nthe area police station at 6.00 a.m. having regard to the
\nfact that his house is situated about 20 miles away.  The
\nlearned Sessions Judge also rejected the contention of the
\nrespondents that as the crime number was not mentioned in
\nthe Fard Ex. K-2, the prosecution case should not be
\nbelieved, on the ground that the same was an inadvertent act
\non the part of the investigating officer.  He also relied
\nupon the evidence of Shambu Dayal PW 2 who was a witness to
\nthe Fards.  So far the contention of the respondents, that
\nthe deceased might have been murdered elsewhere and his dead
\nbody has been brought to the house is concerned, the same
\nwas rejected on the ground that admittedly at the time of
\nhis death the deceased was wearing only an underwear and had
\nkept his baniyan separately on the cot by his side which was
\nsufficient to prove that he had been lying on the cot inside
\nthe house when he was murdered.\n<\/p>\n
HIGH COURT JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe appeal against the aforementioned judgment and
\nconviction was heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad
\nHigh Court.  The Division Bench surprisingly without finding
\nfault with the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge came
\nto the conclusion that it was a case of ‘hit and run’ during
\nnight hours and actual incidence was not witnessed by any
\none mainly on a mistaken belief that the deceased suffered
\nonly one gun-shot injury.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe findings of the Division Bench of the High Court
\nwhich are as under:\n<\/p>\n
“After hearing the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants Sri S.S. Tewari and
\nlearned Addl. Government Advocate and
\nperusing the record, we do not feel
\ninclined to accept the prosecution
\nversion, as stated.  The manner in which
\nthe shooting is said to have been done
\nby the accused persons, do not inspire
\nconfidence in view of the contradictory
\nand varying statements of the eye
\nwitnesses.  The medical report and the
\nnature of injury on the person of the
\ndeceased do not find corroboration from
\nthe ocular evidence.  The explanation of
\nthe witnesses about the injury on the
\nback of the deceased is not at all
\nconvincing and believable.  The injury
\nover the abdominal region with scorching
\naround the area and the direction of the
\nbullet travelling upward from the
\nabdomen indicates that the person was
\nhit, while he was sleeping in lying
\nposture.  It is also not acceptable that
\nthe accused persons before actually
\nhitting the deceased, would raise such
\nalarm, so that witnesses may become
\navailable by awaking them.  If the
\nintention of the accused persons was to
\nkill the victim, so that he may not
\nappear as a witness, in the other case
\npending against them, there was no
\nnecessity of accosting and challenging
\nthe deceased at the mid of the night.\n<\/p>\n
They could have easily fired and
\nescaped.  It appears that it was a case
\nof hit and run during night hours and
\nactually incident was not witnessed by
\nany one.  The accused persons were
\nimplicated in the case on account of
\nenmity and suspicion, and are thus
\nentitled for the benefit of doubt.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe appellant would submit that the High Court committed a
\nserious error in passing the impugned judgment having failed
\nto take into consideration that:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThere had been a motive of commission of crime.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThere had been no delay in lodging the First
\nInformation Report.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe medical report fully supported the prosecution
\ncase and no contradiction in material particulars
\nhave been pointed out in the deposition of the
\nprosecution witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThere had been no reason for false implication of
\nthe accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tThere was no reason for the eye witnesses to depose
\nfalsely.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondents, on the other hand, would submit that the
\nmedical evidence does not support the prosecution story
\ninasmuch as the deceased died out of only one gun-shot
\ninjury.  The learned counsel would contend that Ram Prakash
\nhaving been absconding and Nawab Singh having since died and
\nno overt act on the part of the other respondents as regard
\nthe commission of the murder having been alleged, the
\njudgment of acquittal should not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned counsel would submit that admittedly the
\nnight was dark and the deceased was sleeping on a cot in the
\ncourtyard and as such it was improbable for the eye
\nwitnesses to identify the two respondents.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was pointed out that the story of chasing the
\naccused by Renuka Devi had been contradicted by Ram Ratan.
\nThe learned counsel furthermore pointed out that whereas
\nRenuka Devi stated that the accused persons were chased upto
\n1 furlong, Ram Ratan categorically stated that he had not
\nchased the accused but they ran away towards the West after
\ngoing out of the deceased’s house.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Jain would further draw our attention to the post
\nmortem report and submit that that the medical evidence does
\nnot corroborate the ocular evidence.  The learned counsel
\nwould further submit that the deceased having been sleeping
\nin the courtyard, it is not possible to see the accused
\npersons from inside the room.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was pointed out that the Fard Ex. K-2 did not
\nmention the crime number which also throws a suspicion as
\nregard the time when the Fard was recorded.\n<\/p>\n
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE:\n<\/p>\n
 \tHaving regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the
\njudgment passed by the High Court, we have gone through the
\nrecord of the case.\n<\/p>\n
 \tRenuka Devi, wife of the deceased in her deposition
\nsupported the prosecution case fully.  She categorically
\ndisclosed the reason as to why the lantern used to burn
\nregularly at the same place.  She further deposed that both
\nNawab and Peshkar who had lathis in their hands were
\nstanding just outside the house and were visible from the
\ncourtyard.  In cross-examination she had also disclosed that
\nNatthu was an accused in the case of Kedar in which case her
\nhusband was a witness.  She further stated that her husband
\nwas threatened not to depose in the said case earlier also.
\nHer statement that Ram Prakash was standing only 4-5 hands
\naway from the cot where her husband was lying when he had
\nbeen fired; whereas Natthu was only 2-3 hands therefrom,
\nwhen he fired his shot, is categorical.  She further stated
\nthat she ran upto the accused when the shots were fired.
\nHer statement to the effect that she had gone out of the
\nhouse chasing the accused upto one furlong may be incorrect
\nas no such statement appears to have been made before the
\ninvestigating officer but that, in our opinion, is of no
\nmoment.  Such an omission does not disprove the prosecution
\ncase.  No other infirmity in her deposition has been pointed
\nout nor do we find any.\n<\/p>\n
 \tPW 3 Ram Ratan also fully supported the case of the
\nprosecution.  The only discrepancy which has been pointed
\nout by Mr. Jain is that whereas he had spoken about the
\ngiving a slap on the cheek of the deceased by one of the
\naccused, no other witness stated so.  Again such minor
\ndiscrepancy is of not much significance when his presence in
\nthe house at the time when the occurrence took place is
\nbeyond any doubt.  The contention of Mr. Jain to the effect
\nthat there is no reason as to why he should have been
\npresent in the house of the deceased on the date has rightly
\nbeen rejected by the learned Sessions Judge inasmuch as it
\nwas impossible for a person to be present in the police
\nstation in the early morning of the following day, as he
\ncould not have been communicated of the incident during
\nnight nor any such case has been made out.  It is not even
\nalleged that there existed even a facility of
\ntelecommunication in the village.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe fact that he had not chased the accused persons
\ncannot be said to be an unreasonable conduct on his part in
\nview of the fact that the accused persons were armed.  The
\nevidence of PW 4 Har Nagar Singh also corroborates the
\nprosecution case.  Nothing has been pointed out either
\nbefore the High Court or before us to show that he is
\nuntrustworthy.  PW 5 was the son of the deceased.  He at the
\ntime of incident was aged about 12 years.  The learned
\nSessions Judge satisfied himself that he possessed normal
\nintellect and, was, thus, found fit to depose in the case.\n<\/p>\n
 \tYet again no discrepancy in the statement worth
\nnoticing has been brought to our notice.\n<\/p>\n
 \tDr. S.P. Agarwal who conducted autopsy on the dead body
\nhas proved the post mortem report.  The post mortem was
\nconducted on 12.6.1978 at 4.00 p.m, the material portion of
\nthe report reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Probable Age  About 36 years
\nProbable time since death  About 1.1\/2
\nday.\n<\/p>\n
External Examination<\/p>\n
1. Condition of body  R.M. alongwith
\nupper lower limb, blister present, skin
\npeeled off at places.\n<\/p>\n
Eyes  Open<\/p>\n
Incised wounds  Ante Mortem injuries.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tOne G.S. wound of entry 4 cm x 2 cm
\nx abd. cavity into left side
\nabdomen 21 cm below the left nipple
\n(sic)lacerated. sic coming out
\nsurrounding by scorching area in an
\narea of 10 cm x 4 cm directed
\ninward upward and medially.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAbrasion 7 cm x 0.5 cm on the left
\nside back auxilary line base,
\nmiddle.\n<\/p>\n
***\t\t\t***\t\t\t***<\/p>\n
II –  Thorax.\n<\/p>\n
a. walls, ribs, cartridges see injury
\nnoted
\nb. Pleura\t\t\t\tRt. Punctured.<\/p>\n
\nc. xxx\nd. Right lung\t   Punctured 3 cm x 1 cm\ne. xxx\nf. Pericardium    contains clotted blood\n<\/pre>\n
g. Heart with wt. Rt. Side punctured 1.5
\ncm 1 cm (sic) 8 Oz.<\/p>\n
\n\nIII  Abdomen\n\n1.\txxx\n2.\txxx\n3.\tCavity\t\t   contains clotted blood\n4.\tBuccal cavity, teeth \t16\/16\n5.\txxx\n6.\tStomach and its contents  Empty \npunctured 3 cm x 1 cm (sic)\n7.\txxx\n<\/pre>\n
8.\tLarge intestines and its contents
\nFull of faeces, NAD\n<\/p>\n
9.\tLiver with wt. Left side punctured 2
\ncm x 1 cm x 2 lb.\n<\/p>\n
Addl. remarks One caroted bullet
\nrecovered from Rt. Shoulder, one under
\nthe ribs.\n<\/p>\n
Cause of death  The cause of death due
\nto shock and haemorrhage as a result of
\ngun-shot injuries.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe post mortem report as well as the statements of Dr.
\nS.P. Agarwal in Court fully support the prosecution case.
\nHe categorically stated that the death occurred owing to
\n‘the injuries’, i.e., there were more than one injury.  It
\nfurther appears from ‘Additional Remarks’ of the post mortem
\nreport that two bullets were recovered from the body.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe High Court unfortunately, as noticed hereinbefore,
\nin recording the judgment of acquittal, wrongly laid
\nemphasis that only one fire injury was caused.  The medical
\nreport shows that death took place because of ‘injuries’
\nmeaning thereby more than one injury.  The post mortem
\nreport further shows that whereas one injury was caused on
\nthe left side of the abdomen the other one was caused on the
\nright side of the body.  Keeping in view the nature of the
\ninjuries suffered by the deceased, the same could not have
\nalso been caused by one shot.  Furthermore, evidently the
\nshot fired by Natthu was fatal and not the one fired by Ram
\nPrakash.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe have also seen the site plan, from a perusal whereof
\nit appears that the courtyard was a very small one.  The
\nwidth of the courtyard was 3 paces and its length was only 7
\npaces.  As disclosed by the eye witnesses, they were
\nstanding only two hands away from the room. All the accused
\npersons were residents of the same village and, thus, it
\ncannot be said that, even if the light was dim, it was
\nimpossible for the eye witnesses  PW 1, PW 3 and PW 5 to
\nidentify them.  So far as non-mentioning of the crime number
\non the Fard Ex. K-2 is concerned, PW 9 in his deposition was
\nforthright in admitting that he had not thought necessary to
\nwrite crime number on Fard Ex. K-2.  Such laxity on the part
\nof the investigating officer, in our opinion, would not
\ndisprove the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
SHOULD WE INTERFERE WITH A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL?
\n \tThe High Court has not assigned any cogent or
\nsufficient reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the
\nlearned Sessions Judge.  It arrived at certain conclusions
\nwithout analyzing the evidences on record.  It is based on
\nsurmises and conjectures.  Despite finding that there had
\nbeen an injury over the abdominal region with scorching
\naround the area apart travelling upward from the abdomen
\nwhich indicated that the deceased was hit, no explanation
\nhas been given why the same was not found to be in
\nconsonance with the prosecution story.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe High Court acquitted the accused persons without
\nanalysing the evidence on record and in that view of the
\nmatter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. (See Amar
\nSingh Vs. Balwinder Singh 2003 (2) Supreme 155: JT 2003 (2)
\nSC 1)<\/p>\n
 \tThe Trial Court upon critical examination of the
\nevidence of the eye witnesses had rightly concluded that
\nthey were truthful witnesses and the respondents together
\nwith Ram Prakash (absconding) and Nawab (since deceased)
\nwere present at the time of occurrence.  Merely because the
\nwitnesses happened to be the relatives of deceased by itself
\ncannot be a ground to reject their testimonies.  In view of
\nthe fact that the occurrence took place at the dead of night
\nthey were natural witnesses and were supposed to be present
\nat the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe reasoning of the High Court to the effect that
\nthere was no reason for the accused to raise an alarm to say
\nthe least, is incomprehensible inasmuch as had the deceased,
\nupon being threatened, stated that he would not depose
\nagainst Ram Prakash and Natthu in the case of murder of
\nKedar, he might have been spared.  The High Court failed to
\nnotice that even similar threat was given to Het Ram which
\nshould have been considered as a part of the same
\ntransaction. Furthermore, if the eye witnesses are
\ntrustworthy, the motive attributed for commission of crime
\nmay not be of much relevance.  In this case, however, the
\nmotive for commission of the crime stands proved.  We are
\nsatisfied that by reason of the judgment of the High Court,
\na great miscarriage of justice has taken place.  We,
\ntherefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of
\nthe High Court cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn State of U.P. Vs. Premi and Ors. [2003] 2 SCR 266
\nwherein one of us (Sabharwal, J.) was a member observed:\n<\/p>\n
“A well reasoned judgment of the
\nSessions Court on critical analysis of
\nthe evidence was reversed by the High
\nCourt on consideration of improvements
\nand contradictions which are minor and
\nnatural and rather go to show the
\ntruthfulness of the evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was further observed:\n<\/p>\n
“We are conscious of limitations while
\ndealing with an appeal against a
\njudgment of acquittal.  Having, however,
\nfound that miscarriage of justice has
\nresulted by an entirely faulty and
\nerroneous appreciation of evidence by
\nthe High Court, it becomes our duty to
\ninterfere in the matter.  From the
\nevidence, the only view possible is one
\ntaken by the Sessions Court.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is not a case where two reasonable views are
\npossible.  It is also not a case where findings recorded by
\nthe High Court are fully supported by the evidences on
\nrecord.  The High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded
\nabsolutely on a wrong premise that there had been only one
\nfire injury which is contrary to records.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe High Court being a court of first appeal was
\nrequired to consider and reappreciate the evidences but it
\nfailed to do and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on
\ngeneral observations which is impermissible.  (See Narendera
\nNath Khaware Vs. Parasnath Khaware & Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 488)<\/p>\n
 \tIt is well-settled that when reasoning of the High
\nCourt is perverse, this Court may set aside the judgment of
\nacquittal and restore the judgment of conviction and
\nsentence upon the accused.  (See Ramanand Yadav Vs. Prabhu
\nNath Jha & Ors. JT 2003 (8) SC 404 : 2003 (7) Supreme 576).
\nIt is further well-settled that there is no embargo on
\nappellate court to review evidence upon which an order of
\nacquittal is based.  [See Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) Vs. State
\nof West Bengal and Ors. 2003 (8) Supreme 884, Surinder Singh
\n& Anr. Vs. State of U.P. JT 2003 Supp (1) SC 226 : 2003 (7)
\nSupreme 562, Gorle S. Naidu Vs. State of A.P. and Ors. 2003
\n(8) Supreme 893 and Suchand Pal Vs. Phani Pal & Anr. 2003
\n(7) Supreme 780 : JT 2003 (9) SC 17]<\/p>\n
 \tWe, therefore, have no other alternative but to hold
\nthat the High Court went wrong in passing a judgment of
\nacquittal reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the
\nlearned Sessions Judge.  It is wholly unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION:\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn view of aforementioned, the judgment of acquittal
\npassed by the High Court is set aside and that of the
\nlearned Sessions Judge is restored.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAs respondent No. 1 Nawab Singh is said to have
\nexpired, the appeal stands abated against him.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThis appeal is, therefore, allowed so far as respondent
\nNos. 2 and 3 are concerned.  They shall serve out their
\nremaining sentences imposed upon them by the learned
\nSessions Judge wherefor requisite steps shall be taken in
\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThis appeal is allowed with the aforementioned
\ndirections.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, S.B. Sinha. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 114 of 1997 PETITIONER: State of U.P. RESPONDENT: Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/02\/2004 BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & S.B. Sinha. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT S.B. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-10T00:56:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-10T00:56:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3922,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-10T00:56:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-10T00:56:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-10T00:56:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004"},"wordCount":3922,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004","name":"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-10T00:56:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-nawab-singh-dead-ors-on-3-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166625","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}