Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
MAHAVIR SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2007
Decided On : 09-11-2016
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference – In criminal jurisprudence, accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent Court after a full-fledged trial – Once Trial Court by cogent reasoning acquits accused, then reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on Appellate Court while dealing with appeal – There are no fetters on power of Appellate Court to review, reappreciate and reconsider evidence both on facts and law upon which order of acquittal is passed – But, court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with order of acquittal – Appellate Court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion – There cannot be any straitjacket formula as to under what circumstances Appellate Court can interfere with order of acquittal, but same depends on facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 12 and 13)
(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in process of evaluation of evidence – However, where medical evidence goes far that it completely rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, ocular evidence may be disbelieved. (Para 22)
(D) Criminal Law – Just Sentence – Normally, when a culprit perpetrates a heinous crime of murder and takes away life of a human being, if appropriate punishment is not awarded to that offender, Court will be failing in its duty – Such crime, when indulged by a criminal blatantly, is not committed against an individual alone but is committed against society as well to which criminal and victim are a part – Punishment to be awarded for such a crime must be relevant and it should conform to and be consistent with atrocity and brutality with which crime has been carried out. (Para 25)
Facts of Case:
Murder trial. Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 19th March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1996 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the State by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court for the offence under Section 148 of IPC and convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
Findings of Court:
Normally, when a culprit perpetrates a heinous crime of murder and takes away the life of a human being, if appropriate punishment is not awarded to that offender, the Court will be failing in its duty. Such crime, when indulged by a criminal blatantly, is not committed against an individual alone, but is committed against the society as well to which the criminal and victim are a part. It needs no emphasis from this Court that the punishment to be awarded for such a crime must be relevant and it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been carried out.
Result – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1996 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the State by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court for the offence under Section 148 of IPC and convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the case of the prosecution are that on 26th December, 1987 at about 1 p.m. while Gambhir Singh (PW 7) (brother of the deceased) was having lunch at his home, the appellant along with a group of co-accused persons, each armed with deadly weapons rushed to his house hurling abusive filthy words and picked up a quarrel with his brother Jagannath Singh (deceased) who was sitting outside on a platform (Chabutara) along with his nephew Bir Singh (PW 11). When Jagannath Singh (deceased) raised objection to their behavior, the appellant fired a gunshot in the abdomen of the deceased as a result of which he fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries.
3. Gambhir Singh (P.W. 7) carried the body of the deceased to the police station, Lahar on a bullock cart and lodged the FIR (Annexure P-1) at 4.15 PM on the same day. Dilip Singh Yadav (PW-13) prepared inquest memo and Dr. A. K. Upadhyay (P.W. 12) conducted autopsy on the dead body. On the next day, Dilip Singh Yadav (PW 13) seized blood stained soil and plain soil from the place of occurrence, as per seizure memo. He also seized a gun, 12 live cartridges and 9 empty cartridges from the possession of appellant Mahavir Singh, an axe from Sobaran (co-accused) and a lathi from Kanched Singh (another co-accused) as per seizure memo and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Sagar. Consequently, statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., spot map was prepared and Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar who committed the case to Court of Sessions for Trial. The Trial Court framed charges u/s 302 and 148 of IPC against the appellant and under sections 148, 302/149 of IPC against co-accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and marked several Exhibits while the accused examined none in defence and no exhibits were marked on his behalf.
4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 30th November, 1994 acquitted the appellant from the alleged offences mainly on the ground that there are contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to that of medical evidence, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt formation of unlawful assembly with a motive of committing murder of the deceased and also failed to establish that the bullet had been fired with the firearm seized from the appellant.
5. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Trial Court, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court claiming that the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse and illegal inasmuch as it did not appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective and ignored the evidence of the eyewitnesses. The High Court, on a reanalysis of evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material available on record came to the conclusion that the Trial Court was right in acquitting the other co-accused persons but found fault with the acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The High Court, therefore, partly allowed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court in respect of the charge under Section 148 and convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the appellant approached this Court in app
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
