2009(3) Supreme 159
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Siyaram and Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6030 of 2007)
Decided on : 16-03-2009
(2003)3 SCC 21; (1973)2 SCC 793; (1996)9 SCC 225; (2000)4 SCC 484; (2003)11 SCC 519; (2003)11 SCC 271; (2003)11 SCC 58; (2003)11 SCC 527; (2004)11 SCC 410 – Relied upon.
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object – That object must be one of those set out in Section 141. (Para 7)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Scope and ambit of section 149 discused. (Paras 8 to 10)
AIR 1956 SC 731; (1997)3 SCC 747; (1989)1 SCC 437; (2002)8 SCC 381; SLP (Crl.) No.1494/2004 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. At the time of demarcation of the land both the parties were present but due to dispute between both the parties, one panchnama was being prepared. Siyaram refused to sign in the panchnama and a report was lodged by the complainant against them. Siyaram obtained stay order.
2. On 28.6.1994 when complainant Ramniwas, his brother Om Prakash and Radheshyam were doing work in the land in respect of which stay order had been obtained by Siyaram, the appellants came there with deadly weapons. Accused persons attacked and inflicted injuries to the complainant as also to his younger brother.
3. Allowing the appeal filed by the State the High Court observed that the order of acquittal so far as it relates to offence punishable under Sections 148, 324 read with Section 149 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC was to be set aside. However, the acquittal in respect of offences relatable to Sections 294 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC was to be maintained. Certain custodial sentences were imposed.
Finding of the Court :
High Court’s judgment cannot be said to be in any event deficient.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena. Appellants had faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 294 read with Sections 149, 326 read with Sections 149 and 336 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 28.6.1994 complainant Ramniwas, his brother Om Prakash and Radheshyam were doing work in the land in respect of which stay order had been obtained by Siyaram. At the time of demarcation of the land both the parties were present but due to dispute between both the parties, one panchnama was being prepared. Siyaram refused to sign in the panchnama and a report was lodged by the complainant against them. Appellants came there with deadly weapons like lathi, farsa and sword etc. Accused Ramsewak inflicted injuries by farsa on the complainant. He has caused injuries to his left hand and the accused caused injuries to his brother by sword and also caused injuries to his younger brother which cut his finger. The rest of the accused persons caused injuries by lathi. After beating the complainant and his brother, the accused ran away from the spot. Report was lodged in the police station. Spot map was prepared. Injured Ramniwas, Radheshyam and Om Prakash were sent for medical examination. From the medical report the injuries were found to be dangerous to life. The trial court after conclusion of trial acquitted the appellants. The trial Court acquitted the present appellants on the ground that there were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of injured eye witnesses. The High Court noted that there may be minor omissions and contradictions but they were not of such magnitude to warrant rejection of the evidence of the eye witnesses.
The High Court found that the evidence of injured witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 3 and 6 were fully corroborated by medical evidence and the trial Court should not have directed acquittal. Accordingly, allowing the appeal filed by the State the High Court observed that the order of acquittal so far as it relates to offence punishable under Sections 148, 324 read with Section 149 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC was to be set aside. However, the acquittal in respect of offences relatable to Sections 294 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC was to be maintained. Certain custodial sentences were imposed.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court had indicated sufficient reason for directing acquittal and since the view taken by the trial Court was a possible view there was no scope for interference. It is submitted that Section 149 has no application.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment and submitted that the trial Court on abrupt conclusions had discarded the evidence of the eye witnesses which were fully corroborated by medical evidence.
6. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-
Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana
State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh
Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat
Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa
Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar
Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P.
Chikkarange Gowda v. State of Mysore
SupremeToday
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.