Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Kiran Pal on 1 August, 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2381 OF 2010
STATE OF U.P.
…APPELLANT
VERSUS
KIRAN PAL AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. The discovery of three bodies led to a crime being
registered against the three accused who were
convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 120B of Indian
Penal Code, 18601 and sentenced to death. The High
Court was considering the Death Sentence Reference
(DSR) along with the appeals filed by the accused. The
State is aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused by the
High Court.
2. Trite is the principle that an acquittal by a Court of law on
Signature Not Verified
the basis of the lack of evidence strengthens the
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.08.04
16:35:18 IST
Reason:
1
IPC
Page 1 of 5
Criminal Appeal No.2381 of 2010
presumption available to the accused, a laudable
principle of criminal jurisprudence and fortifies his
innocence. Unless the acquittal is based on findings
which are perverse and shocks the judicial conscience
the same cannot be overturned. Even if two reasonable
views are possible, the Appellate Court will not interfere,
especially when the view in favour of the accused has to
be preferred and the very existence of such a possibility
is a reasonable doubt and would be a hypothesis against
the guilt of the accused as has been held in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2. As in the
cited decision, in the instant case it was purely based on
circumstantial evidence that the conviction was entered
into by the trial court.
3. Two of the three bodies recovered on 07.06.1996 was
identified on 13.06.1996 by PW3 and PW4, the brothers
of the deceased. It was pursuant to such identification that
one of the brothers PW4 raised a complaint on the very
same date against the accused. It was the complaint of the
2
AIR 1984 SC 1622
Page 2 of 5
Criminal Appeal No.2381 of 2010
first informant that his brother, one of the deceased, was
employed in a tanker owned by one Subhash Chand Jain
with whom there arose a dispute regarding
remuneration, upon which the deceased had left his
employment. It was the specific complaint that on
04.06.1996 Subhash Chand Jain took his brother, with the
assurance that his accounts would be settled. So much of
the complaint was presumably in the direct knowledge
of the first informant. The complaint then went on to
describe how the deceased was accompanied by three
others; the accused herein, in a tanker and picked up
another of the identified deceased, who also had the very
same grievance and killed both, along with one another
person who was an innocent traveler in the tanker. It is
not clear as to how the first informant came to know the
subsequent events, which obviously is a cooked up story.
4. Pertinently, PW4 in his deposition stated that his brother
was taken away on the night of 5.6.1996 by the three
accused, quite contrary to the statement made in the
complaint which destroys the last seen theory. PW3, the
Page 3 of 5
Criminal Appeal No.2381 of 2010
brother of the other identified deceased did not have any
such claim of his brother having been seen last with the
accused. It is also very relevant that despite the two
deceased having gone missing on 05.06.1996 till
13.06.1996 there were no complaints registered by their
families.
5. One other circumstance, which was relied on by the trial
court was the recovery of a driving license belonging to
one of the deceased. In fact, PW3 had deposed before
Court that the dead body of his brother was identified on
the basis of his clothes and driving license on 13.06.1996.
In that circumstance, the evidence of PW6, a Sub-
Inspector that it was recovered on the pointing out of one
of the accused, on 21.06.1996 was rightly held to be very
improbable. The rope recovered from the place where
dead bodies were found was taken as a recovery under
Section 27, which was rubbished by the High Court;
rightly so.
Page 4 of 5
Criminal Appeal No.2381 of 2010
6. We are convinced that the trial court had completely
misdirected itself in convicting the accused on the basis
of the evidence adduced.
7. The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
…………………………………J.
(N.V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 01, 2025.
Page 5 of 5
Criminal Appeal No.2381 of 2010
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.10 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2381/2010
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KIRAN PAL . & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 01-08-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIAFor Appellant(s) :
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Srajan Shankar Kulshreshtha, Adv.
Dr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Jain, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The criminal appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-
reportable order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed non-reportable order is placed on the file]
[ad_1]
Source link