2008(5) Supreme 562
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Valson and Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Kerala — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2001
Decided on : 01-08-2008
(1934) 61 IA 398; AIR 1945 PC 151; AIR 1954 SC 36; (1952) SCR 193; (1953) SCR 418; AIR 1955 SC 807; (1955) 2 SCR 1285; (1961) 3 SCR 120; (1963) 2 SCR 405; (1979) 1 SCC 355; (1996) 9 SCC 225; (2002) 3 SCC 57; (2002) 4 SCC 85; (2002) 6 SCC 470; (2003) 12 SCC 606; (2006) 10 SCC 313; (2007)4 SCC 415 – Relied upon.
(b)Criminal Trial - Entry in the injury certificate does not necessarily amount to a statement. (Para 40)
(1994)1 SCC 388 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1.Thirteen persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2.By judgment dated 16.2.1998 all of them were found to be not guilty of the charges and were acquitted.
3.The State of Kerala filed an appeal questioning the acquittal.
4.By the impugned judgment, the High Court found that accused 1 and 2 were guilty and directed their conviction for offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default stipulation.
Findings of the Court :
High Court rightly reversed the acquittal by the trial court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.Thirteen persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). All accused persons except A-8 faced trial before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. By Judgment dated 16.2.1998 all of them were found to be not guilty of the charges and were acquitted. The State of Kerala filed an appeal questioning the acquittal. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court found that accused 1 and 2 were guilty and directed their conviction for offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default stipulation.
2.The appellants had questioned the correctness of the High Court’s Judgment. According to them, the High Court had not kept in view the parameters of appeal against acquittal. It is submitted that even if two views are possible, the view supporting the accused had to be accepted and since the trial Court had precisely done it, there was no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court.
3.In view of rival submissions of the parties, we think it proper to consider and clarify the legal position first. Chapter XXIX (Sections 372-394) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the present Code”) deals with appeals. Section 372 expressly declares that no appeal shall lie from any Judgment or Order of a criminal court except as provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 373 provides for filing of appeals in certain cases. Section 374 allows appeals from convictions. Section 375 bars appeals in cases where the accused pleads guilty. Likewise, no appeal is maintainable in petty cases (Section 376). Section 377 permits appeals by the State for enhancement of sentence. Section 378 confers power on the State to present an appeal to the High Court from an Order of acquittal. The said section is material and may be quoted in extenso :
“378. Appeal in case of acquittal.—(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate Order of acquittal passed by any court other than a High Court, or an Order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
(2)If such an Order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), to the High Court from the Order of acquittal.
(3)No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.
(4)If such an Order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the Order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
(5)No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an Order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that Order of acquittal.
(6)If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an Order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that Order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2).
4.Whereas Sections 379-380 cover
Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab
Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra
Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra
Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat
Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.
In Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
P. Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.