Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Ramjan Khan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2129 of 2014
Decided On : 25-10-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 415] – Appeal against conviction – Supreme Court may have to re-appreciate evidence in cases where a prima facie perverse appreciation of evidence is brought out – In an appeal against conviction in murder case under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., a proper analysis of evidence and accepting or rejecting, appreciation of evidence by trial Court must reflect in Judgment of High Court – Disposal of appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., shall not be by cryptic or non-reasoned order. (Para 7)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5)] – Murder – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Judgment of acquittal was passed after setting aside Judgment of conviction passed against respondents herein by trial Court – Through evidence of mother of deceased, who is also informant, prosecution has attempted to establish existence of an oral dying declaration – Dying declaration itself is not a strong piece of evidence and when it is verbal and that too, allegedly made to a close relative (in this case allegedly to mother), evidence of mother about oral dying declaration was to be treated with care and caution – Oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of court in its correctness – There can be no good reason to hold that prosecution had succeeded in conclusively proving guilt of accused/respondents herein beyond reasonable doubt warranting displacement of finding of High Court – If on facts view taken by High Court is a reasonable possible view, though not only view that could be taken, interference with acquittal would be uncalled for – Judgment of acquittal passed by High Court upheld. (Paras 6, 17, 20, 29 and 30)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 173] – FIR – FIR is not meant to be a detailed document containing chronicle of all intricate and minute details – Prime object of FIR, from point of view of informant is to set criminal law in motion and from point of investigating authorities is to obtain information about alleged activity so as to enable to take suitable steps to trace and book the guilty – FIR is an important document, though not a substantial piece of evidence, and may be put in evidence to support or contradict evidence of its maker (Informant) – Even though it is not meant to be an encyclopedia containing chronicle of all intricate and minute details, it could be used to corroborate its maker under Section 157 of Evidence Act or to contradict informant under Section 145 of Evidence Act to establish whether he is a trustworthy witness or not. (Paras 12, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is against judgment of acquittal dated 31.01.2013 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 1998 in reversal of the judgment of conviction recorded against appellants therein viz., respondents herein, under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 1996 dated 28.10.1998.
Findings of Court:
There can be no good reason to hold that prosecution had succeeded in conclusively proving guilt of the accused/respondents herein beyond reasonable doubt warranting displacement of the finding of the High Court that in view of the omissions and contradictions, the oral testimonies of the witnesses are not reliable and the respondents herein are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. This appeal is against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 1998 in reversal of the judgment of conviction recorded against the appellants therein viz., the respondents herein, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 1996 dated 28.10.1998.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant State and learned counsel for the respondents, the convicts who were acquitted by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.
3. The case of the prosecution, in succinct, was as under: -
‘On 01.10.1996, at about 1.00 pm, the respondents herein viz., Ramjan Khan, Musaf Khan @ Musab Khan and Habib Khan, by cutting/beating with sickle, axe and stick caused death of Naseem Khan, near the village well of Karaikheda and thereby committed the crime punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘IPC’).’
4. As mentioned above, the respondents herein were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj. The prosecution had examined 19 witnesses including Haseen Khan (PW-5) and Farid Khan (PW-9), who are the real brothers of deceased Naseem Khan and eye witnesses. Documentary evidence including the postmortem report prepared by Dr. S.S. Thakur (PW-1) were tendered by the prosecution. On the side of the defence two witnesses were examined.
5. The trial Court relied on the oral testimonies of PW- 5 and PW-9, the minor brothers of the deceased besides the testimony of PW-8, the mother of the deceased who happened to be the informant and the further found that the ocular evidence got corroboration from the medical evidence, to enter conviction on the appellants for having committed murder of Naseem Khan. Consequently, the respondents herein were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 35,000/-. The respondents herein, the convicts preferred appeal jointly, against the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC and the life sentence imposed therefor, the High Court acquitted them of the offences with which they were charged and allowed the appeal in the impugned judgment of acquittal.
6. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised before us, we think it only appropriate to refer to some of the relevant decisions of this Court laying law in regard to appeal against acquittal. It is true that the judgment of acquittal was passed after setting aside the judgment of conviction passed against the respondents herein by the trial Court.
7. In the decision in Jai Karan & Ors. v. State of U.P., (2003) 12 SCC 655 this Court held that where the trial Court and the High Court had concurrently found the accused guilty, the Supreme Court would not scrutinize the evidence once again, unless there has been a total miscarriage of justice. We may hasten to add here that this Court may have to re-appreciate evidence in cases where a prima facie perverse appreciation of evidence is brought out, even in such cases. We shall also not be understood to have held that merely because the trial Court and the High Court have rendered divergent findings, this Court should invariably scrutinize the evidence once again and in that regard this Court should entertain an appeal. In an appeal, against conviction in murder case under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ‘Cr.P.C.’), a proper analysis of the evidence and accepting or rejecting, the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court must reflect in the judgment of the High Court. In other words, the disposal of the appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., shall not be by cryptic or non- reasoned order. In the decision in Govindaraju v. State by Sivaramapuram PS, (2012) 4 SCC 722, this Court held that a very vital distinction has to be kept in mind while dealing with appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., that interference would be justifiab
(1) FIR – Even though it is not meant to be an encyclopedia containing chronicle of all intricate and minute details, it could be used to corroborate its maker under Section 157 of Evidence Act or to....
The appellate court emphasized that eyewitness accounts must be given due weight, and mere flaws in investigation do not automatically discount credible testimonies in murder trials.
The judgment emphasizes the principle that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
An inference can never be basis of conviction when testimony of a witness is not believed on cogent reasoning.
1. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 2. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the....
(1) Dying declaration – For a statement to be termed dying declaration, circumstances discussed/disclosed therein must have some proximate relation to actual occurrence – If a dying declaration inspi....
Point of Law : Power of an Appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that ....
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for compelling evidence to overturn such decisions.
(i) Acquittal – Merely because appellate Court can take another view, it cannot be a ground for reversing the judgment of acquittal.(ii) Chain of circumstances – The prosecution is required to prove....
The judgment emphasizes the need for caution in evaluating evidence in a grave crime, the requirement for independent corroboration of related witnesses, and the importance of proving the plea of ali....
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
