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

2009 Supreme(SC) 387

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.
Lunaram - Appellant
Versus
Bhupat Singh and Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 405 OF 2009
Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1524 of 2008)
Decided on : February 27, 2009

Headnote:A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section 378:- Though normally the High Court does not interfere in case of acquittal by the trial court, there the trial court acquitted ignoring vital evidence, it is the duty of the High Court to re-appreciate the same and come to a conclusion whether the accused had committed the offence or not. (Para 6)

       B) Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 323:- Where the accused is alleged to have thrown out the deceased from a moving vehicle but the prosecution witness have only stated that the accused has twisted the ankles of the deceased which resulted in his death and another witness stated that the deceased was strangulated, held the prosecution witnesses were not credible enough and hence acquittal upheld. (Para 8)

       C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section 378:- The power of the appellate court while acquitting the accused is restated. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur directing acquittal of the respondents 1, 2 and 3. The learned Special Judge, SC and ST, Prevention of Atrocities Case, Balotara had convicted the respondents and sentenced them which was set aside by the High Court as noted above.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Complainant Luna Ram lodged an FIR in Police station, Bakhasar at about 8.30 a.m. On 31.08.1998, complainant reported that almost two months back he alongwith Sugala, Tila and Lila went to Dhanera, Gujarat, for a job. On 30.08.1998, they came to Sanchore in a Jeep and, thereafter, by another Jeep, they went to village Madhav. At around 7.15 P.M., they boarded a Bus from Village Madhav and reached Sata at around 9.30 P.M. From Sata, accused Bhupat Singh, Amrit @ Amiya, Ganu Singh @ Ganpat Singh, Pratap Singh and Kamiya boarded the bus. After just leaving village Sata, Bhupat Singh, Rai Singh, Pratap Singh and Ganu Singh came near their seat, as they all four were sitting on the last seat of the bus. Rai Singh stated that they will kill all the four. Bhupat Singh caught Lila by holding his neck and, thereafter, Rai Singh, Pratap Singh and Ganu Singh threw Lila out of bus. Complainant hid himself out of fear. Thereafter, Sugala and Tila were also thrown out of bus as when he left the bus at village Bakhasar, Sugala and Tila were not found in the bus. The reason of fight by the accused was also stated to be that almost 10-15 days back, buffaloes belonging to Pratap Singh and Ganu Singh damaged crop of Nagji and, at that time, when Ladha was taking those buffaloes, then Rai Singh had beaten Ladha. The complainant further stated that he reached his place at about 12 to 1 O'clock in night and stated all those facts to Nagji and following morning, it was found that Lila died, whereas Tila and Sugala received injuries. On the basis of the report, FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 307 and 352, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short `SC/ST Act'). The Police, thereafter, conducted investigation and, thereafter, filed challan in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, from where, the matter was committed to the trial Court. Charges were framed against four accused under Sections 302, 307, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2) (5) of SC/ST. The charge was read over to the accused who denied the charge and claimed trial.

At the trial, 27 witnesses were produced and thirty-six documents were exhibited by the prosecution to prove their case, whereas, in defence, statement of one witness was recorded and eight documents were produced. Statements of the accused were recoded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short the `Code'). The learned trial Court convicted accused Bhupat Singh, Ral Singh and Amiya under Section 302/34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer one month's imprisonment. They were also convicted under Section 323 IPC, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer one week imprisonment. These accused were, however, acquitted from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Dashrath Giri @ Baba was acquitted completely.

The High Court noted that the evidence of PWs 9, 10 and 11 did not have any credibility. It was full of omissions and contradictions which affected the credibility of their evidence. Contradictions and omissions were held to be not of any minor nature.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PWs 9, 10 and 11 should not have been discarded by the Hi











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