Supreme Court Upholds High Court Acquittal, Declines to Interfere in Uttarakhand Murder Case

A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the State of Uttarakhand's appeal against a Division Bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which had allowed an appeal by the accused and set aside his conviction under Section 302 IPC. The appeal challenged the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent who had been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Almora and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine.

The Court dismissed the State's appeal and declined to disturb the High Court's view, holding that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony warranted benefit of doubt to the accused. The Court reiterated the settled principle governing interference with findings of acquittal and observed that unless a High Court's view was "totally perverse or impossible", this Court would not interfere. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Unless the view taken by the High Court is found to be totally perverse or impossible, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. Equally, if two views are possible and one of the views is taken by the High Court merely because the other view appears to be a possible view, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding of acquittal." The judgment further noted that "in a criminal case, if there is any doubt, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused person."

Background The prosecution's case arose from a purported attack in a village in Almora district in which the deceased, Hira Lal Verma, allegedly succumbed to injuries inflicted by a sickle. PW-1 (Ganeshi Lal) stated that he heard cries and saw the accused assaulting the deceased; PW-2 (his daughter, Nirmala Verma) and PW-4 (his wife, Hira Devi) gave evidence concerning reaching the scene and the absence/presence of the accused. PW-3 (Shankar Lal Verma) did not witness the incident and gave a statement based on information from PW-1. A First Information Report was registered on PW-1's oral complaint and a chargesheet followed. The trial court convicted the respondent for murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine.

On appeal the High Court allowed the accused's appeal and set aside the conviction. The State challenged that order before the Supreme Court. The State, through the Additional Advocate General, contended that the eyewitnesses were consistent and corroborated by PW-3 and argued that minor contradictions were to be expected given their rustic background. The respondent's counsel maintained that the three eyewitnesses gave "totally inconsistent versions" and that the High Court's approach was a permissible view.

The Supreme Court examined the testimony and observed material inconsistencies: PW-1 was about 76 years of age and testified that the houses were 20–22 steps apart, while PW-2 said the distance was around 80 metres; PW-2 and PW-4 contradicted each other on who reached the spot first and both differed from PW-1 about whether the accused was present when they arrived. The Court also recorded the High Court's remark that the witnesses were "rustic villagers" and that their "testimonies will have to be taken with a pinch of salt." In view of these contradictions, the High Court had applied the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondent. The Supreme Court found no perversity or impossibility in that conclusion and held that interference was not warranted.

The appeal was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1700 OF 2014 Case Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Deepu Verma @ Devendra Lal Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Kaushalpati Gautam, Additional Advocate General, Uttarakhand For the Respondent(s): Smt. S. Janani, Senior Counsel

Date of Judgment: February 6, 2025 Bench: B.R. Gavai, J. and K. Vinod Chandran, J.