KHEM KARAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1974-4-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on April 08,1974

KHEM KARAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BHARWAD MEPA DANA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [RELIED ON]
SUKH RAM VS. STATE OFU P [RELIED ON]



Cited Judgements :-

NAYI BHARATKUMAR KESHAVLAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
HI-TECH AUTOMATION VS. J K SHARMA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-265] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. PRITHI AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-597] [REFERRED]
AMARNATH PANDE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1987-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM IRON & STEEL INDUSTRIES VS. RAJNEESH GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-165] [REFERRED TO]
KALIPADA MAHATO VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1986-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. VAZHIVITTAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-207] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. THANGARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-426] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAIMENTS & GARMENTS INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-522] [REFERRED TO]
NEERU SHARMA VS. RAJ KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(J&K)-2019-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BHIMRAO DAULATRAO KADAM & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-98] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SAHEBRAO S/O BABURAO JOGDAND [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-191] [REFERRED TO]
GHUREY LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-104] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY [LAWS(SC)-2004-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BHATU NARAYAN PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1994-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAJESH PITAMBAR SONWANE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-45] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. ANIL SINHA [LAWS(MPH)-2023-3-175] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ERWADI KASIM [LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-324] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. RAHAMATHULLAH KHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-381] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2023-4-127] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER KUMAR VS. RAM KISHAN [LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-596] [REFERRED]
RAVINDER P. KUMAR VS. STATE & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTHI VS. KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-335] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ANKUSH RANGNATH KOLEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. GAUTAM FULCHAND SHEJAWAL [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-360] [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
MUTUM SEITYABAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2008-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION BIDKIN, TQ-PAITHAN VS. NIRANJAN S/O SHRIPATRAO JADHAV, AGE28 YEARS, OCCU:BUSINESS, R/O CIDCO, AURANGABAD, N3, PLOT NO. 34, OPPOSITE TO HOTEL AMBASSADOR, AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-124] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA DEVI VS. SUNIL KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-584] [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR OF POLICE VS. P.V. BHUPATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-325] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. T.RETNAPANDIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-364] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. V.VAIRAMANI [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. VASHRAM PRABHATBHAI RABARI [LAWS(GJH)-2024-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. LEKH RAJ [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-149] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. DASAN [LAWS(KER)-1985-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. YALLAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-194] [REFERRED TO]
DIVAKAR NEELKANTHA HEGDE NARAYANA GOPAL KRISHNA HEGDE STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-1996-8-49] [CITED]
DEV NARAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
UNION TERRITORY LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION VS. PATTAKKAL SAYED AHAMMED KOYA THANGAL [LAWS(KER)-2016-3-225] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. H.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KAR)-2016-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI SAKHARAM BHUMRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. AJAY KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-130] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR VS. VIMAL BANSAL [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-414] [REFERRED]
KAMAL VS. HARJIT SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-362] [REFERRED TO]
MALA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-7-216] [REFERRED]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. GEETABAI [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-174] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND SHALIKRAO WAGHMARE [LAWS(BOM)-2020-8-165] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. LAXMAN S/O KUNDLIK MURKUTE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-304] [REFERRED TO]
BIVASH CHANDRA DEBNATH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MANI RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
BALU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. AMMINI [LAWS(KER)-1987-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
GOVARDHANSING RAGHUVANSHI VS. CHANDANMAL RAMPRASAD RATHI [LAWS(BOM)-1981-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DASHRATH S/O VISHWANATH [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. GOVARDHAN VITHAL GOVANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. LILABAI SURESH SOPAN PAWAR [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAJARAM GULABRAO KENJALE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-317] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. HARNEK SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-329] [REFERRED]
SIKKU @ MADHAV VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-271] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. VS. ARMAN GULZAR TADVI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. GOVIND SHANKARRAO KOHALE AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SAHEBRAO S/O. BABURAO JOGDAND [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
DASHRATHBHAI MOHANBHAI RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-185] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMRAKSHA CHHATRADHARI SINGH [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAJARAM SAKHARAM PAWAR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-73] [REFERRED TO]
HARADHAN DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
ROY FERNANDES VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
K GOPALREDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1978-11-22] [RELIED ON]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DEVIDAS KISHANRAO MORE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-57] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SANTOSH BABAN MADHE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BALASAHEB KASHINATH SHENDAGE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-114] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF J&K VS. ZAKIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2019-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE REP VS. T.JAYACHANDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-357] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. KALAIVANAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-332] [REFERRED TO]
GANESAN VS. PARAMASIVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-149] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL CHAND JAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1994-12-51] [REFERRED]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VILAS NARAYAN JAGTAP [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SUBHASH BALAJI KAIBANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NARAYAN S/O KISAN MOTE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI VS. SURJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-470] [REFERRED]
RAJBIR VS. NORANG [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-586] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. MOOL CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
EDAYAKAL MUTHUKOYA VS. PATTAKKAL SAYED AHAMMED KOYA THANGAL [LAWS(KER)-2016-3-256] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. MD ALFU MIAH [LAWS(GAU)-2012-6-44] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. INDRA PAL & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-360] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. ROSARIO FERRAO [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
SHAJI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
BIVASH CHANDRA DEBNATH @ BIVASH D VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2002-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. OMPRAKASH @ MUNNA ALIYAR SINGH [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
P RAM NARAYAN VS. L P PICHAN [LAWS(BOM)-1981-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SOPAN S/O BANSHI KHALGE, [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-325] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PARSHU R.KHILLARE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VYANKATI JANARDHAN DHAKNE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-100] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. BHAGIRATH MAHADEO BHOSALE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-251] [REFERRED TO]
HISAR TULSI COOP NON-AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED VS. SUMAN LATA CHAUDHARY [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-727] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U.P. VS. GIRISH PAL [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-211] [REFERRED TO]
THENAI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-60] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave, by three out of twenty three, who alone were convicted by the High Court in reversal of a total acquittal by the trial court, turns on the propriety of the Court of Appeal convicting accused persons whose initial advantage of a presumption of innocence has been strengthened by a judicial affirmation at the first level.
(2.)The few facts are these. Two groups - the complainants' and the accused - Have been on terms of bitter hostility - a background material which has legitimately induced both the courts to be very sceptical about the veracity of the prosecution witnesses in the absence of unlaying corroboration. As found by both the courts, a confrontation and exchange of violence occurred on June 22, 1964 each party calling the other aggressor. Anyway, several on the prosecution side did receive gunshot wounds, although luckily not fatal, and three among the accused bunch had on their person lathi blow injuries. The trial Judge disbelieved the version of the defence but found the PWs too partisan to pin his faith on, and in consequence acquitted everyone. The High Court agreed that unless the infirmity of interested testimony was cured by other credible evidence the fate of the case would be the same and on that basis dismissed the State's appeal against all but the three appellants before us. Was this exceptional treatment justified (a) by the evidence, and (b) in the light of first court's acquittal
(3.)An encounter did take place and a case and counter-case ensued. The accused - Except a few who pleaded alibi in vain -claimed that they were attacked. Even the trial court has rejected this contention and fire High Court has held that, having regard to the number and nature of injuries and the number of persons who have been hit by the power, the accused were the attackers. We see no reason to disturb this conclusion. Even so, how could you hand-pick three out of twenty three for punishment The complainant's plea is that when attacked by guns he and his men went at them, disarmed them and beat them with lathis. The convicted three have injuries which fit in with this version. The appellate Court has taken these injuries as corroborative of participation in the rioting and attempt to murder (read with S. 149, I.P.C.) charged against all the accused. The short question is whether these wounds bring home the guilt so strongly as to warrant upsetting of an earlier acquittal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.