Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Suryavir - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.19963/2020, (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-03-2014 in CRAD No.1049/2009 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh), (IA No.58892/2021 - For Condonation of Delay in Filing)
Decided On : 03-02-2022
Delay condoned - Acquittal of accused - Subsidiary evidence regarding recovery not sufficient to establish case beyond reasonable doubt - Benefit extended to co-accused - Order of dismissal recalled for furthering the ends of justice
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the subsidiary evidence regarding recovery and found it insufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the co-accused. The court also recalled the order of dismissal for furthering the ends of justice.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. The court extended similar benefit to the co-accused and recalled the order of dismissal for furthering the ends of justice.
Issues: Delay condonation, sufficiency of evidence, benefit to co-accused, recall of dismissal order
Ratio Decidendi: The subsidiary evidence regarding recovery was found insufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The court extended similar benefit to the co-accused and recalled the order of dismissal for furthering the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The appellant and the co-accused were acquitted of all charges, and the order of dismissal was recalled for furthering the ends of justice. Both convicted accused were directed to be set at liberty unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence.
ORDER :
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the Reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.
The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
18. That leaves us with subsidiary evidence regarding recovery, which in the absence of substantive evidence, by itself would not be sufficient. In the circumstances, in our considered view, the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant would, therefore, be entitled to acquittal. The instant appeal is thus allowed acquitting him of the charges levelled against him.
19. We must now consider the effect of dismissal of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9957 of 2016 preferred by co-accused-Devender alias Dhola. The order dismissing the special leave petition did not give any reason for dismissal.
20. In our view, the cases of both the convicted accused i.e. Devender and the present appellant stand on the same footing and if after having considered the matter, benefit is given to the present appellant, similar benefit ought to be extended to Devender.
……
22. In the premises, for furthering the ends of justice, we recall the order of dismissal passed by this Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9957 of 2016 and said SLP is restored to the file. This course is adopted even in the absence of any such prayer or application on part of Devender. We proceed to grant leave in his matter and allowing his appeal, we extend similar benefit to said Devender. He is thus acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
23. The Registry is directed to send appropriate intimation with regard to the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9957/2016 being allowed to the concerned Jail authorities so that benefit can be extended to said Devender.
24. Both convicted accused shall be set at liberty unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence.”
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Insufficiency of subsidiary evidence to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt
The appellate court should interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law, and very strong and cogent reasons must exist to do so.
In reviewing appeals against acquittals, the Appellate Court should intervene only when compelling reasons exist, particularly if the Trial Court’s findings appear unreasonable.
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
