SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 634

2004(4) Supreme 269
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Y.K. Sabharwal & B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
State of Rajasthan etc. -Appellants
versus
Bhanwar Singh & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 1997
With
Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2004
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 2247 of 2004)
(@ Crl. M.P. No. 219 of 1995)
Decided on 6-5-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Jain, Vinay Arora and Sushil K. Jain, Advocates.
For the Complainant : Rakesh K. Khanna, Advocate for B.D. Sharma, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where two views are possible, one of acquittal and the other of conviction the higher Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal as recorded by the Court.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Appeal against acquittal-Accused allegedly fired at deceased which hit him on right thigh-There was dispute between the parties over user of roofs of shop-Five persons, PW1, PW4, PW7, PW9 and PW18 were stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence-PW4, PW7 and PW9 declared hostile-Name of PW18 not mentioned in FIR-She was examined after 22 days of the occurrence-High Court acquitted accused, refusing to place reliance upon evidence of PW1 as defence version held probable-Two views possible, one of acquittal and other of conviction-Whether judgment of acquittal as recorded by the High Court was sustainable-(Yes)-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 378.

       Held : The High Court cannot be said to be unjustified in doubting veracity of the prosecution case as defence version is probable one and accordingly impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by it cannot be said to be perverse in any manner so as to be interfered with by this Court more so when in the present case, it cannot be said that only one view is possible but here is a case where two views are possible. It is well settled that in a case where two views are possible, one of acquittal and the other of conviction, the higher court should not interfere with the order of acquittal impugned before it. This being the position, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents of the charges. (Para 9)

       

JUDGMENT

B.N. Agrawal, J.-Application for permission to file SLP is allowed.

Leave granted.

2. Respondents Bhanwar Singh and Dharma Ram along with accused Vishnu were tried and by judgment rendered by trial court, accused Vishnu was acquitted of the charges whereas Bhanwar Singh (respondent No. 1) was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Dharma Ram (respondent No. 2) was convicted under Section 302/109 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Apart from the sentence awarded against them, respondent Nos.1 & 2 were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively by way of compensation to wife and children of deceased Arjun Singh. The gun belonging to accused Bhanwar Singh - respondent No. 1 was ordered to be forfeited to the State. Against the order of acquittal of accused Vishnu, no appeal was preferred but on appeal being preferred by the respondents, their convictions have been set aside by the High Court and they have been acquitted of all the charges.

3. Prosecution case as disclosed in the first information report, in short, was that in the heart of town of Jodhpur, there was a building known as Sainia House wherein Rajesh Solanki (PW 1) had taken a shop on rent and was running a cycle shop therein. After the induction of PW 1 as tenant in the said shop, accused Bhanwar Singh purchased the said shop along with another shop which was adjacent to it and after purchase, PW 1 became tenant of Bhanwar Singh. In another shop, Bhanwar Singh was carrying on business in the name and style of Chamunda Traders. Roofs of both the aforesaid shops were in use of PW 1 for which there was a dispute between him and accused Bhanwar Singh leading to filing of several cases. On 1st June, 1989 between 6.30 and 7.30 in the evening, when PW 1 was going on the roof top of the said shops, he was stopped by Bhanwar Singh and abused. At that time, accused Dharma Ram and Vishnu were also present there. Thereupon, PW 1 went to his uncle Arjun Singh who was running a provisional store in the same very building, called him and when he came, he told Bhanwar Singh that the roofs of the shops were always in the use of PW 1. Thereupon when PW 1 again wanted to go to the roof, Bhanwar Singh asked him not to go failing which he would be shot. Then accused Dharma Ram and Vishnu shouted that PW 1 should be shot. Bhanwar Singh thereafter went to his room, brought his gun and told Arjun Singh that he would give full right of use of the roofs to PW 1 and by uttering these words, he fired at Arjun Singh which hit him on the right thigh as a result of which Arjun Singh fell down. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Md. Sabir (PW 4), Achal Dass (PW 7), Mst. Ummed Kumari (PW 9) and Mst. Chandrakanta (PW 18) apart from the complainant Rajesh Solanki (PW 1). After the occurrence, PW 1 went to the police outpost where he narrated the occurrence before a constable who telephonically informed the police control room about the same and asked PW 1 to go to the control room whereupon PW 1 went to the police control room where he came to know that the police had already left for the place of occurrence. Thereupon, PW 1 came back to the place of occurrence and reported the matter to the police on the basis of which a case was registered at the police station under Section 307 of the Penal Code and the injured was shifted to hospital where later on he succumbed to the injuries, as such case was converted into one under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

4. The police after registering the case took up investigation, during the course of which, witnesses stated that after the occurrence. PW 1 was chased by accused Bhanwar Singh and whi


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top