Jagdish vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2009 Supreme(SC) 506

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2009 Supreme(SC) 506

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
Jagdish
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1275 OF 2002
Decided On : 19-03-2009

Important Points

An appellate court cannot reverse a Trial Court's order of acquittal and convict the accused unless the lower court's judgment is perverse. If the acquittal is based on a correct appreciation of material, it should not be interfered with.

Subject

Criminal Law - Criminal Appeals

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.302, S.34

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court cannot interfere with the same unless the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court is perverse.

(B) Evidence - Reliability of eye-witnesses - Non-disclosure of suspects' names - Informant met eye-witnesses prior to lodging first information report (FIR) but names were not disclosed, resulting in FIR against unknown persons - Failure of prosecution to explain such non-disclosure justifies the Trial Court's refusal to place reliance on such evidence.

Facts of the case:
The appellant and four others were tried under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused. Upon appeal by the State, the High Court upheld the acquittal of four accused but reversed the decision regarding the appellant, convicting him and sentencing him to life imprisonment based on the testimony of eye-witnesses. It was observed that the informant had met the eye-witnesses before filing the first information report, yet the report was lodged against unknown persons because the witnesses did not disclose the names of the accused to him.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Trial Court's approach in refusing to rely on the eye-witnesses' evidence was correct, as the prosecution failed to explain why the names of the accused were not disclosed during the informant's visit to the residence of the deceased. The findings of the Trial Court did not suffer from perversity.

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's order of acquittal and convicting the appellant based on the statements of eye-witnesses when the Trial Court's findings were not perverse.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court is not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal and convicting the accused if the judgment of the Trial Court is not perverse.

Result: appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court, so far the same relates to the appellant, is set aside and the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is restored.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Judgment :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The sole appellant, along with accused, Dhiran, Ram Swarup, Prakash and Champa, were tried for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, `I.P.C.], but were acquitted by the Trial Court. Against the order of acquittal, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an appeal before the High Court, which upheld the acquittal of other four accused persons, but reversed the same in relation to the appellant and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

We have been taken through the judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the High Court, apart from the evidence of P.W.1 (Naktu), the informant, who was chowkidar of the village as well as the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.2 (Lahori Bai), P.W.3 (Bimla Bai) and P.W. 5 (Grisham Bai). Undisputedly, the informant, before going to the Police Station for lodging first information report, met the aforesaid witnesses but none of them disclosed the name of the accused to him. As a result of this, the first information report was lodged against unknown persons. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation as to why the names of accused persons were not disclosed to

P.W.1 when he visited the residence of the deceased. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all relevant material, refused to place reliance upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses and held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it acquitted all the accused including the appellant. The approach adopted by the Trial Court for recording the order of acquittal was correct and findings recorded by it did not suffer from any perversity, yet the High Court upset the same qua the appellant by placing reliance upon the statements of the so-called eyewitnesses. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court can not interfere with the same. As the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perversed, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same and convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court, so far the same relates to the appellant, is set aside and the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is restored.

The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.