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

2007 Supreme(SC) 1197

2007(6) Supreme 313
Supreme Court of india
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Jagdish & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 988 of 2006
Decided on : 18-09-2007

important point
High Court while dealing with an appeal from a judgment of acquittal is required to meet the reasoning of the trial court.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – High Court while dealing with an appeal from a judgment of acquittal is required to meet the reasoning of the trial court – Well settled that where two views are possible, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal – High Court can interfere in an order of acquittal provided the materials on record lead to only one conclusion that the accused are guilty. (Paras 12 and 13)

       2007 (5) SCALE 472 – Relied upon

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – High Court neither analysing materials on record itself independently nor meeting reasoning of the trial court – Was not correct in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. (Paras 14 and 15)

       (2004) 13 SCC 147; (2006) 10 SCC 313; 2007 (6) SCALE 206 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       First Information Report was lodged by one Mangal Singh (PW-1) alleging that at about 8.00 A.M. on 27.09.1987 he along with his nephew Gabbar Singh and another nephew Mansingh (deceased) went to the house of one Govindas Kurmi for borrowing his bullock cart to carry bricks. They were informed that the same was in the ‘Beda’ of Birjoo. He asked his son to accompany them up to the said place. While the cart was being led and they reached near the house of Mangoo Kurmi, they found him armed with ballam, Thakurdas armed with axe, Jagdish armed with axe and Devidayal armed with pharsa, standing at the Chabootra of their house. Thakurdas allegedly hit the deceased Mansingh on his neck as a result whereof he fell down. He allegedly again inflicted another blow on his neck causing a big wound. Jagdish inflicted an axe blow on his back. Devidayal inflicted a pharsa blow on the neck of the deceased and Mangoo inflicted a ballam blow on his back. They inflicted two or three more blows on the back of the deceased, whereafter they ran away. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and passed an order of acquittal. High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Session Judge, and convicted the accused for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

       Findings of the Court:

       High Court erred in interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

judgment

S.B. SINHA, J. —

1.Appellants herein, who are two in number, have filed this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench at Gwalior, whereby the judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.1990 passed by the learned Session Judge, Datia, in S.T. No. 38 of 1987 was set aside convicting them for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

2.A First Information Report was lodged by one Mangal Singh (PW-1) alleging that at about 8.00 A.M. on 27.09.1987 he along with his nephew Gabbar Singh and another nephew Mansingh (deceased) went to the house of one Govindas Kurmi for borrowing his bullock cart to carry bricks. They were informed that the same was in the ‘Beda’ of Birjoo. He asked his son to accompany them up to the said place. While the cart was being led and they reached near the house of Mangoo Kurmi, they found him armed with ballam, Thakurdas armed with axe, Jagdish armed with axe and Devidayal armed with pharsa, were standing at the Chabootra of their house. All the four of them started abusing them saying that they would finish the deceased finally that day. Thakurdas allegedly hit the deceased Mansingh on his neck as a result whereof he fell down. He allegedly again inflicted another blow on his neck causing a big wound. Jagdish inflicted an axe blow on his back. Devidayal inflicted a pharsa blow on the neck of the deceased and Mangoo inflicted a ballam blow on his back. They inflicted two or three more blows on the back of the deceased, whereafter they ran away.

3.Appellants, thus, along with Thakurdas and Mangoo were tried for commission of the murder of Mansingh. Before the learned Trial Judge the prosecution in support of its case, inter alia, examined Mangal Singh, (informant) as PW-1, Kailash and Dabbu, who are said to be eye-witnesses, as PW-2 and PW-4 respectively.

4.The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution witnesses. The defence of the appellants in the case was that the deceased Mansingh was not a man of good character. He had many enemies. He had also strained relations with one Pragi Choudhari. He had taken the wood of Pragi and grabbed the land of Lal Singh. He had also shot at Bhagirath and had assaulted one Lalloo and committed a theft. He, therefore, might have been murdered by any one of them.

5.Appellant examined one Brijn-andan as DW-1. According to the said witness on the date of incident at about 4 and 5 a.m. when he was going for easing himself in the morning, he saw the dead body of Mansingh lying near the well and Thkurdas was with him. In the meantime, Kailash had also arrived. He, thereafter, asked Thakurdas to call Mangal Singh, brother of the deceased. According to him, Mangal Singh had stated that the deceased had inimical relations with many persons, and one of them might have killed him. The police later on arrived and had questioned him.

6.Before the learned Trial Judge, Dr. R.N. Gupta, who conducted the autopsy, examined himself as PW-3. According to him, on post-mortem of the dead body he found the following external injuries :

“1.One incised oblique wound on the rt. side of the neck size 3 x =”

2.Another incised oblique wound 1" above the aforesaid wound 2.5 x =”

3.Wound, size 3.5 x-ray 1" towards backside on the neck.

4.Wound, size 3 x =” lt. side of neck.

5.Wound, size 3 x1" Lt. side of neck. All wound were on the neck sufficiently deep due to which respiratory canal, oesophagus food canal, blood vessels and bones were cut. Blood clotted all four sides of wound, and margins were contracted.

6.One incised wound on the back side of neck in the middle of both the shoulders 3 x 1" size (original copy of witness No. 3 is un-illegible).

7.One incised wound over the lt. shoulder 2 x =”. Face turned pale, eyes closed because of blood spots. Mouth was l
















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