NDLI: Rajesh Yadav & Anr Vs. State of U.p.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code 1860: ss. 302, 307 – Two persons were done to death by bullet firing by the accused – Previous dispute between the groups – Two eye-witness present on the spot – Recoveries made from all the accused – Trial court convicted and sentenced all the accused – High Court convicted the appellants for life, while acquitting them for the offence charged u/s. 307, with the confirmation of conviction and sentence u/s. 25 of the Arms Act – On appeal, held: PWs-1 & 2 have not contradicted between themselves being the eye-witnesses – Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any material to hold that they are interested, their testimonies cannot be rejected – No delay in the registration of the FIR – Nothing is said on the credibility of the witness who turned hostile in the cross-examination in view of the evidence of PWs -1 & 2 – High Court rightly set aside the conviction rendered by the trial court for the charge u/s. 307 – Merely because the injured witness was not produced, the entire case of the prosecution would not become false – Entire circumstances under which the material was collected including the cartridges, along with the recoveries made which were sent to the expert, have been explained by the official witnesses, there is nothing unnatural in the testimony – No delay is found in either sending the recovered arms to the expert or receiving the FSL report – Investigating officer could not be produced despite the best efforts made – That per se would not make the entire case of the prosecution bad is law particularly when the final report itself cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer – Trial court as well as the High court considered the evidence threadbare in coming to the right conclusion – Material sufficient enough to implicate and prove the offence against the appellants - Non-explanation for the existence of some other empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence would not facilitate an acquittal for the appellants – Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court upheld – Arms Act – S. 25.Evidence Act, 1972: s. 3 – “Evidence” – Explained.Appreciation of “evidence” – Explanation of – Held: While appreciating evidence, evidence can be divided into three categories, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable – If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability – When evidence produced is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters. s. 33 – Relevancy of certain evidence – Held: Section 33 is an exception to the general rule which mandates adequate facility for cross examining a witness – In a case where a witness after the completion of the chief examination and while subjecting him to a substantial and rigorous cross examination, did not choose to get into the witness box on purpose, it is for the court to utilize the said evidence appropriately – Issues over which the evidence is completed could be treated as such by the court and then proceed – Issues for which the cross examination is not over would make the entire examination as inadmissible.Non-examination of witness – Effect of, on prosecution case – Held: Mere non-examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution – It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance – If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice – Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it.Expressions hostile witness, Chance Witness, Related and Interested Witness – Explained.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 173 – Final Report – Evidentiary value of – Held: Final Report under Section 173 is nothing but a piece of evidence – It forms a mere opinion of the investigating officer on the materials collected by him – It is not indispensable – the evidence of investigating officer is required for corroboration and contradiction of the other material witnesses - Even assuming that the investigating officer has not deposed before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused is not entitled for acquittal solely on that basis.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 148
Petitioner	Rajesh Yadav & Anr
Respondent	State Of U.p.
SCR	[2022] 16 S.C.R. 967
Judgement Date	2022-02-04
Case Number	339

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Rajesh Yadav & Anr Vs. State of U.p.

Please Log-in to view this content

Dila and Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Brahm Swaroop & Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Hori Lal and Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Rajesh Pandey Vs. State of U.p.

Mano Dutt & Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Nathuni Yadav and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Anr

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.p.

Ram Bharosey Vs. State of U.p.

Iqbal & Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Rajesh Yadav & Anr Vs. State of U.p.

Rajesh Yadav & Anr Vs. State of U.p.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Dila and Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Brahm Swaroop & Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Hori Lal and Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Rajesh Pandey Vs. State of U.p.

Mano Dutt & Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Nathuni Yadav and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Anr

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.p.

Ram Bharosey Vs. State of U.p.

Iqbal & Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Rajesh Yadav & Anr Vs. State of U.p.